Today, New York stands at another such moment.

As Congress and the White House move forward with significant reductions in federal support for programs that millions of Americans depend on, the consequences are beginning to come into focus. These same political leaders are celebrating delivering tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of working-class communities across the country, and in New York, who are left wondering how they will absorb the loss of health care, nutrition, housing, and income supports that help struggling families remain afloat. To be sure, these concerns are particularly acute in Black communities, where generations of economic inequality have left many households with fewer resources to weather financial shocks. 

Last year my organization, the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), released a statewide health care affordability survey that found that 68 percent of New Yorkers experienced at least one health care affordability burden in the past year, while 80 percent worry about affording health care in the future. Even more troubling, 66 percent reported delaying or going without needed medical care because of cost. Nearly one-third said medical expenses forced them to deplete savings, incur debt, or sacrifice other necessities. 

Those findings should serve as a warning.

If New Yorkers are already struggling to afford health care before the full impact of federal funding reductions is felt, what happens when support for health coverage and safety-net programs is reduced further? What happens to working families living paycheck to paycheck? What happens to seniors, people with disabilities, and children whose access to care depends on public programs?

The answer is simple: hardship increases. And hardship is not distributed equally. Black New Yorkers continue to face higher rates of poverty, lower household wealth, greater housing insecurity, and more significant barriers to economic mobility than many other groups. CSS’s longstanding research on economic insecurity—including our Unheard Third surveys—has consistently documented the precarious financial circumstances faced by millions of low-income New Yorkers. Our research shows that one-third of New York City’s voting-age citizens live in low-income households, underscoring just how many residents remain vulnerable to economic shocks. 

That vulnerability is occurring at a time when the cost of living continues to soar.

Housing remains unaffordable for far too many families. Transportation costs strain household budgets. Health care expenses continue to rise faster than wages. Food insecurity remains a daily reality in many neighborhoods. Federal spending cuts threaten to intensify every one of these challenges.

According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, H.R.1’s cuts to Medicaid and SNAP will cost New York $5.8 billion in FY27 and rise to$14.3 billion in FY30. The danger of these cuts is not just the loss of funding itself, but the cascading effect that follows. 

When food assistance is reduced, more families turn to food pantries. When health coverage becomes more difficult to obtain, people delay treatment until illnesses worsen. When housing assistance becomes harder to access, more families risk eviction and homelessness. Each problem compounds the next. The costs eventually shift to local governments, hospitals, schools, nonprofits, and neighborhoods.

Fortunately, New York is not without options.

City and state leaders must begin preparing now for what lies ahead. That means protecting access to affordable health coverage, strengthening rental assistance programs, investing in anti-hunger efforts, and preserving supports that help working families remain economically stable. A good example of this is the decision to expand the Fair Fares transit discount program in the city’s recently enacted budget. As a result, more than 1.3 million working-age New Yorkers will be eligible for half-priced bus and subway fares later this year. 

So, the question facing New York is not whether the federal cuts will have consequences. They will. The real question is whether we will act quickly enough to protect the communities that have the most to lose. History teaches us that moments of economic uncertainty often deepen existing inequities unless government intervenes intentionally and aggressively. Without action, the burden will once again fall disproportionately on Black communities and other New Yorkers already struggling to get by.

That outcome is not inevitable.

New York has a long tradition of standing up for working families and vulnerable residents when others turn away. The months ahead will test whether we remain committed to that tradition. The next crisis is not a distant possibility. It is already taking shape.

Our challenge now is to ensure that the people who can least afford another setback are not asked to bear the greatest sacrifice. The future of thousands of New York families depends on the choices we make today.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

Download RFP

Rent-stabilized apartments are home to the largest share of low-income households of any housing type  in New York City, housing more than three times as many low-income households as public housing. They also represent the largest source of housing for Black and Latino New Yorkers.

According to the RGB, 62 percent of all evictions last year occurred in rent-stabilized buildings, with the highest concentration in the city's poorest borough: the Bronx. According to CSS’s 2025 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security, 67 percent of low-income tenants living in rent-stabilized apartments are unable to meet their basic needs or are just barely getting by, and 83 percent have little or no emergency savings.

The Board considered these facts during its final deliberations. Nevertheless, some landlords argue that it did not, claiming the vote reflected the mayor's campaign slogans more than the evidence. Those making that argument should listen to the Board's current landlord representative, Maksim Wynn.

Wynn correctly pointed out that while a rent increase may seem attractive to a financially struggling landlord, in practice it could result in a net loss of income. Why? Because if tenants are already struggling to pay their current rent, raising it will cause a significant number of them to fall behind on their rent payments.

Instead of raising rents and creating both an eviction crisis for tenants and a nonpayment crisis for landlords, Wynn proposed a series of public policy measures designed to reduce the costs landlords face rather than passing those costs on to tenants. He identified three major factors squeezing the margins of rent-stabilized building owners: property taxes, fuel costs, and insurance.

On property taxes, the city and state should pursue comprehensive property tax reform to fix a deeply regressive system—one that has allowed owners of the most expensive rent-stabilized apartments to avoid paying property taxes for 40 years while overtaxing the owners of the least expensive—and generally oldest—rent-stabilized apartments.

On fuel costs, we should continue supporting the transition to cleaner, more sustainable energy sources to reduce both building emissions and operating expenses, including the installation of heat pumps and induction stoves.

On insurance, the Zohran Mamdani administration is already advancing a city-backed insurance program for rent-stabilized buildings. This could go a long way toward slowing the unchecked growth in property insurance costs, which have become by far the fastest-growing expense for landlords.

But even before these reforms take effect, the RGB’s data has been clear: the majority of landlords remain in a strong financial position. Net Operating Income (NOI)—income minus expenses—increased by more than 6 percent last year, following increases of 12 percent the year before and 10 percent the year before that.

The rent freeze was fully justified and will have an enormous impact on the lives of millions of tenants in the years ahead. We must all work together to ensure this is not the end of the story, but the beginning of a much broader effort to advance affordability, sustainability, and fairness.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), New York's leading advocate for low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years, and a member of the MTA Board. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author. The New Majority is available on the CSS website at www.cssny.org

Only three Black students were among the 777 offered admission this fall to Stuyvesant High School. Just one was among the 300 offered admission to by Staten Island Tech.

Overall, this year Black students received 3.5 percent of the 4,023 acceptance letters to specialized high schools, and Latino students received 6.5 percent. By contrast, Asian students were given more than half of all offers, followed by white students with 23 percent, school figures show.

So few Black and brown kids in the hallways of specialized high schools send a message that their absence is normal, that they cannot cut it academically, and that maybe they’re just not smart enough. That thinking is shameful—and dangerous. We all know it is not the case.

Several factors are in play. There is the controversial Specialized High Schools Admissions Test (SHSAT). Then there is the test-prep cottage industry that allows wealthy households—and others who view specialized-school admission as a last-ditch opportunity for a better life—to game the system, training their kids from early adolescence.

What is more, Black students comprise a shrinking constituency in the New York City school system. They make up only 19 percent of students, school figures show. The majority of school children, 42 percent, are Latino, while Asian students make up 19 percent and white students 16 percent.

As a result, the major racial minority groups hold equal or greater political sway than Blacks, which reflects the loss of nearly 200,000 Black city residents between 2000 and 2020, according to US Census data. That helps explain the lack of public outrage among our elected officials and education and racial-justice advocates about the current plight of Black specialized high school admissions.

The biggest culprit in this mess is the SHSAT, the sole standard for admission to eight of the nine specialized schools. LaGuardia High School, a performing arts school, instead requires auditions or portfolio reviews. The test is not used anywhere else in the United States.

I say dump the SHSAT and automatically admit the top three percent of all middle school students. At the very least, expand the criteria to include grade point average, extracurricular activities, and maybe even socioeconomic factors.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani, himself a Bronx High School of Science alum, has changed his position on the crisis. On the campaign trail, he called for abolishing the SHSAT because, he said, the exam was biased.  More recently, the mayor told The New York Times that the issue is a “struggle” for him. 

Stuyvesant High School’s admissions decisions were the most striking. It’s arguably the city’s most sought-after specialized public high school and offers to Black students this fall have reached their lowest level since at least 2014, which is as far back as the city’s public data goes. In the mid-1980s, Black and Latino students made up approximately 15 percent of Stuyvesant’s student body.

The scandal in plain sight is how the wealthy game the system. They invest tens of thousands of dollars and countless weekends in test prep. Worthy students from modest households cannot afford those classes while some households pay eye-popping amounts, from $3,500 annually to as much as $50,000.

In fact, weekend SHSAT tutoring has become so ingrained in some cultures that they spare no expense to give their children the opportunity to achieve a top score on the grueling, high-stakes exam.

It wasn’t always like this. Indeed, the specialized schools once enrolled in coming classes that were more representative of the broader school system. For instance, Black and brown kids comprised the majority of Brooklyn Technical High School’s student body from the early 1980s until the mid-1990s, with Black enrollment alone hovering above 30 percent. That began to change in 2002, when the Bloomberg administration expanded SHSAT-based admissions — which instead of further integrating specialized high schools contributed to fewer Black students being admitted.

The plight of Black and brown students matters because, nationally, it contributes to a drop in people of color at America’s elite universities, according to  National Center for Education Statistics. In nearly all highly selective private and public colleges — the 85 that accept 25 percent or fewer applicants — Black and Latino enrollment in recent years has declined or remained flat.

Separately, a new study published by Brown University found that high-scoring students from underrepresented minority groups were more likely to be “cascaded” into less selective colleges, which generally have lower graduation rates and postgraduate earnings.

It’s unacceptable that Black students are effectively locked out of the opportunity to study at our premier specialized high schools. Something must be done, because growing numbers of them are being denied access to the springboard into the nation’s top colleges and highest-paying jobs.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

At a Glance: Key Facts About Essential Plan 200-250 Coverage Changes

• Nearly 500,000 New York State residents have lost their Essential Plan 200-250 health coverage because of federal changes.
• If you received a notice that your coverage ended, take action as soon as possible. You have until August 30 to sign up for a new insurance plan on the New York State of Health Marketplace.
• Even if you lose your insurance, you may still be able to access affordable care through community health centers, financial assistance programs, and other low-cost resources.
• Free and confidential help is available through Community Health Advocates (CHA), which assists New York State residents in exploring eligibility for insurance, finding low-cost care, and connecting with health insurance enrollment services.

On July 1, nearly 500,000 New York State residents lost their Essential Plan health coverage because of federal changes enacted through H.R. 1. If you've received a notice that your coverage ended, you may be wondering what happens next, whether you have other insurance options, or how you'll continue to access the medical care you need.

The good news is that you don't have to navigate these changes on your own.

Community Health Advocates (CHA), a program of CSS, provides free, personalized, and unbiased assistance to help New Yorkers understand their options, find affordable health care, resolve insurance problems, and connect with available resources.

Health coverage rules can be confusing, and the right option depends on your individual circumstances. Rather than trying to navigate these changes on your own, a trained advocate can help you understand your specific situation and identify the resources that are right for you.

Why are so many New Yorkers losing Essential Plan 200-250 coverage?

As of July 1, 2026, New Yorkers with incomes between 200 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) are no longer eligible for Essential Plan health coverage, as a result of federal changes from H.R. 1.

These changes have resulted in the loss of Essential Plan coverage for nearly 500,000 New Yorkers, including roughly 230,000 New York CIty residents. This includes many working New Yorkers who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private health insurance.

Additional federal changes affecting Medicaid eligibility will start in January 2027, which will impact even more New Yorkers.

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Community Service Society NY (@cssnyorg)

What should you do if you've lost Essential Plan 200-250 coverage?

If you've received a notice that your Essential Plan coverage ended, you may still qualify for other health coverage with financial assistance. And even if you currently don't have health insurance, there are still resources that help New Yorkers access affordable health care.

If you've lost coverage, Community Health Advocates (CHA) can help you:

• Understand the notices you received about your coverage
• Review your health insurance options
• Connect you with enrollment assistance
• Resolve insurance and coverage issues
• Answer questions about medical bills and health care costs
• Access affordable health care services and financial assistance programs

Call 888-614-5400, option 3 or email cha@cssny.org to speak with a trained health care advocate. Use the Agency Finder to connect with a CHA Advocate in your community.

Where can you get low-cost care if you don't have health insurance?

Even if you don't have health insurance, there are still ways to access affordable care. Community Health Advocates (CHA) can help you explore your options.

Hospital Financial Assistance

All hospitals in New York are legally required to offer financial assistance to uninsured or underinsured patients who cannot afford their hospitals bills, according to New York's Hospital Financial Assistance Law.

Hospital financial assistance is an income-based discount on care provided in hospital settings.

You may qualify if:

• You live in New York State
• Your income is below 400 percent of the federal poverty line ($63,840 for a single person; $132,000 for a family of four in 2026)
• You are uninsured, you are insured but still have medical costs are more than 10 percent of your annual income, or you have exhausted your insurance

You can apply for hospital financial assistance at any time, and hospitals cannot deny you care if you have unpaid hospitals bills. Learn more about your rights to apply for hospital financial assistance.

Hospital-Based Clinics and Health Systems

Across New York State, you may qualify for non-emergency care at these facilities with hospital financial assistance or discounts based on your income.

In New York City, the NYC Health + Hospitals program offers NYC, providing access to H+H services for free or at low cost to eligible individuals. Visit their website or call 646-NYC-CARE (646-692-2273) for more information.

Federally Qualified Health Centers and State/Community-Based Health Centers

Local clinics offer full-service (non-emergency) care on a discounted basis according to your income and household size. Search for a clinic near you:

• Federally Qualified Health Center Locator
• New York State Health Center Locator

Note: In a medical emergency, go the emergency department at a hospital. Federal law prohibits hospitals from turning people away when experiencing a medical health emergency, regardless of their insurance status, immigration status, or ability to pay.

Additional Resources

For additional information on low-cost care in New York, see CHA's Guide to Finding Low-Cost Care.

Not sure which options are right for you?

That's exactly what Community Health Advocates (CHA) is here for. If you have more questions regarding your specific situation, contact us at 888-614-5400, option 3 Monday to Friday, 9am to 4pm, or email cha@cssny.org. Use the Agency Finder to connect with a CHA Advocate in your community.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Essential Plan?

The Essential Plan, or EP, is affordable, comprehensive health insurance for low-income adults living in New York who are not eligible for Medicaid. EP is provided through managed care plans and offers essential health benefits. 

The Essential Plan has no monthly premium and no deductible, but participants may pay a small fee called a co-payment for certain covered services.

Why are so many New Yorkers losing Essential Plan 200-250 coverage?

As of July 1, 2026, for people with incomes between 200-250% of the federal poverty level (FPL) are no longer eligible for the Essential Plan due to federal changes enacted in H.R. 1. These are moderate-income New Yorkers who are U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants. They earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to afford commercial insurance through the state’s health insurance marketplace.

The new income limit is now 200% FPL, which equals $31,920 for an individual, and up to $66,000 for a family of four.

Can New York restore coverage in the future?

State lawmakers identified state funding to fill the federal void. However, this funding was not included in the final 2026-27 state budget.

The state government will have another opportunity to include this funding during the 2027 legislative session, and CSS will continue advocating for state action to restore affordable health coverage for the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers affected by these federal policy changes.

Can I still see a doctor if I lose my health insurance?

Yes. There are affordable options around the state, such as hospital-based health clinics, federally qualified health centers and state/community-based health centers, and academic medical programs. (See the "Where can you get low-cost care if you don't have health insurance?" section above for more details.)

To better understand your options and get connected to affordable care resources, contact Community Health Advocates (CHA) by calling 888-614-5400, option 3 or emailing cha@cssny.org.

What does Community Health Advocates (CHA) do to help New Yorkers?

Community Health Advocates (CHA) provides free, personalized, unbiased assistance to help New Yorkers get, keep, and use health coverage. CHA helps consumers find low-cost or free care, solve billing issues, resolve medical debt, appeal insurance denials, access care, and understand their health care rights.

CHA operates through a live-answer helpline and in partnership with a network of community-based organizations serving consumers locally in 62 New York counties in over 35 languages. CHA offers assistance to all health care consumers, whether they have health insurance or not and no matter their immigration or citizenship status.

How do I contact Community Health Advocates (CHA)?

Call Community Health Advocates (CHA) at 888-614-5400, option 3 Monday to Friday, 9am to 4pm, or email cha@cssny.org. Use the Agency Finder to connect with a CHA Advocate in your community.

Sign up for the CSS newsletter

• Fair Fares is New York City's discounted transit program, providing half-priced subway, bus, and Access-A-Ride fares to low-income residents
• Eligibility is expanding from 150 percent to 200 percent of the federal poverty level
• Approximately 1.3 million working-age New Yorkers will be eligible when the expansion is implemented later this year
• In a recent survey of Fair Fares recipients, more than 80 percent say that Fair Fares helps them afford essentials like housing, food, and utilities
• Nearly two-thirds of Fair Fares users surveyed say that transit is still difficult to afford even with the discounted fares
• Visit the Fair Fares NYC website to check your eligibility and apply.

In June 2026, New York City announced the expansion of the Fair Fares NYC program, increasing eligibility from 150 percent to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. This expansion will extend eligibility for half-priced subway and bus fares to an estimated 1.3 million working-age New York City residents and will reduce transportation costs for many households struggling to afford the city's rising cost of living.

Research from the Community Service Society of New York (CSS) shows that Fair Fares helps people get to work, school, medical appointments, and essential services. But the research also shows that significant affordability and enrollment challenges remain.
 

Fair Fares Makes Public Transportation More Affordable

For many New Yorkers, using public transportation is not optional. It's how people get to work, attend school, attend medical appointments, buy groceries, and care for their families. But the cost of getting around the city can put a significant strain on families that are struggling to build economic security.

Fair Fares NYC helps address that challenge by providing low-income New Yorkers with a 50 percent discount on subway and bus fares. Since its inception in 2018, the program has become one of the city's most important tools for making New York more affordable.

CSS research shows that Fair Fares has a meaningful impact on people's daily lives. In early 2026, we conducted a survey of 1,653 New Yorkers who receive benefits like SNAP, Cash Assistance, or CityFHEPS housing vouchers, which closely overlap with Fair Fares eligibility:

• Nearly all survey respondents (92%) who use the program said it makes getting around New York City easier
• More than four in five (81%) said the savings help them afford other essentials such as housing, food, and utilities
   

The Expansion Will Help Hundreds of Thousands of Additional New Yorkers

Building on the program's success in making transit more affordable, New York City expanded Fair Fares eligibility from 150 percent to 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) in June 2026, significantly increasing the number of NYC residents who can receive discounted transit fares.

In total, the expansion is expected to make approximately 1.3 million working-age New Yorkers eligible for the program once its implemented later this year. An estimated 45 percent of newly eligible residents are regular commuters, meaning the expansion will reduce transportation costs for upwards of 500,000 people.

The expansion is particularly important at a time when many New Yorkers are struggling with the rising cost of living. Transportation is one of the expenses households cannot avoid. Expanding Fair Fares moves New York in a more equitable and just direction by easing this burden.
 

Too Many Eligible New Yorkers Still Miss Out on Fair Fares

While the expansion is an important step forward, research from CSS shows that many eligible New Yorkers are still not enrolled in the program.

In our 2026 survey of New Yorkers who receive public benefits, more than one in three respondents reported that they were not enrolled in Fair Fares.
 

If the program is not reaching a significant share of people who are already engaged with government services, then it is likely also missing many additional eligible residents who are not already connected to those services.

Survey respondents also reported barriers to accessing Fair Fares, including lengthy applications, confusing renewal processes, and delays that caused benefits to lapse.

These findings point to a significant opportunity to strengthen Fair Fares by making enrollment simpler and ensuring that everyone who qualifies can access this important benefit.
 

The Work Is Not Finished: What Comes Next for Fair Fares?

Even for New Yorkers who receive Fair Fares, transportation costs often remain an obstacle to economic security.

In our 2026 survey, 64 percent of Fair Fares users said that public transportation is still difficult to afford even with the program's half-priced discount. As one Queens resident explained, "Even with half off, it's 3 bucks a day for a round trip. That's a lot."

The findings suggest that additional reforms could make the program even more effective. CSS recommends:

• Automatically enrolling New Yorkers who have already been determined eligible through programs such as SNAP, Cash Assistance, or CityFHEPS.
• Make transit free for the lowest-income New Yorkers (under 150 percent of the federal poverty level), recognizing that even reduced fares can remain an economic hardship.
• Expand eligibility for half-priced fares up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level to include workers who earn minimum wage.
• Adopt free buses for all New Yorkers, improving affordability and bus speed across the city.
• Invest in improvements bus and subway reliability and safety, particularly in communities with limited transportation options.
   

Together, these reforms would help ensure that Fair Fares reaches everyone who qualifies and that the cost of public transportation is no longer a barrier to economic security.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Fair Fares NYC?

Fair Fares NYC is a New York City program that provides eligible residents with a 50 percent discount on MTA subway, local bus fares, and Access-A-Ride. The program, which was created in 2018, is designed to make public transit more affordable for low-income New Yorkers.

Who qualifies for Fair Fares?

New York City residents ages 18 to 64 who meet the program's requirements can qualify for Faires. In June 2026, New York City expanded eligibility to households with income up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). The exact implementation date when these newly eligible New Yorkers can enroll in Fair Fares remains TBD and is expected before the end of 2026

What is the income limit for Fair Fares?

Households with income up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) may be eligible. The table below shows the Fair Fares eligibility annual income limit, as of 2026:

How can someone apply for Fair Fares?

Eligible New Yorkers can apply through New York City's Fair Fares NYC website. The website provides ways to check your eligibility and submit your application.

What documents do I need to sign up for Fair Fares?

• All applicants need to submit proof of identity, residency, and income.
• Here is a list of suggested documentation.

How many New Yorkers use Fair Fares?

As of July 2026, more than 370,000 New York City residents are enrolled in Fair Fares.

Why aren't some eligible New Yorkers enrolled?

CSS survey respondents report barriers such as lengthy applications, confusing renewal processes, and delays that caused benefits to lapse. These findings suggest there are opportunities to simplify enrollment and increase participation among eligible New York City residents.

Why did New York City expand Fair Fares?

New York City expanded Fair Fares to make public transportation more affordable to a greater number of low-income residents. By increasing the eligibility limit from 150 percent to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), the expansion makes an estimated 1.3 million working-age New Yorkers eligible for half-priced subway and bus fares. The change is expected to help hundreds of thousands of additional commuters.

Does Fair Fares really make a difference in people's lives?

Yes. CSS research shows that Fair Fares has a meaningful impact on the daily lives of low-income New Yorkers who are enrolled.

In a 2026 survey of 1,653 New York City residents receiving public benefits, nearly all Fair Fares users (92%) said the program makes it easier to get around the city, and more than four in five (81%) said the savings help them afford other essentials such as housing, food, and utilities. By reducing transportation costs, Fair Fares is improving access to work, school, and health care while simultaneously helping recipients pay their bills.

Why are advocates calling for further changes to Fair Fares?

CSS research has shown that many low-income New Yorkers still see public transit costs as a barrier to economic stability, even with a half-priced discount. CSS ultimately envisions a Fair Fares program that offers free transit for New Yorkers at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level, and discounted fares for those up to 300 percent, which would finally include New Yorkers making minimum wage.

Additionally, when Access-A-Ride users age out of Fair Fares at age 65, they must pay the full fare. While subway and bus riders can transition into the MTA Reduced Fare program for senior citizens, the senior discount is not available for Access-A-Ride. Access-A-Ride users who qualify for Fair Fares should have their half-priced fares extended past the current cutoff at age 64.

Sign up for the CSS newsletter

A two-year rent freeze provides rent stabilized tenants with much needed relief. Although it is not—and should not be—a means-tested program, rent-stabilized apartments are home to the largest share of low-income households of any housing type in New York City, with over three times more low-income households than in public housing. These apartments are also the largest source of housing for Black and Latino New Yorkers.

According to the RGB, last year 62 percent of evictions were in rent-stabilized buildings, with the largest share coming from the poorest borough — the Bronx. According to CSS’s 2025 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security, 67 percent of low-income rent-stabilized tenants cannot make ends meet or are barely managing to get by, and 83 percent have little or no emergency savings.

The Board heeded this data in their final deliberations. Some landlords, however, claim they did nothing of the sort, and instead pursued a vote that aligns with the mayor’s campaign slogans instead of the facts. But those making this claim should listen to the Board’s current landlord representative, Maksim Wynn, who offered a thoughtful explanation for why a rent freeze is right for both tenants and landlords.

Wynn rightly noted that a rent hike might sound sweet to a cash-strapped landlord, but in reality it could result in a net loss of revenue for that owner. Why? Because if tenants can barely afford to pay the rent they are currently charged, then when the rent goes up a sizable portion will go into arrears. 

Instead of raising rents and creating an eviction crisis for tenants and a non-payment crisis for landlords, Wynn suggested a suite of public actions to reduce landlords expenses instead of raising tenants’ rents. He identified the three factors driving tight margins for rent stabilized landlords are taxes, fuel, and insurance. 

On taxes, the city and state must pursue comprehensive property tax reforms in order to rebalance a thoroughly regressive system—one which charges the owners of the most expensive rent-stabilized apartments nothing in property taxes for 40 years, while overcharging the owners of the cheapest (and oldest) rent-stabilized apartments. CSS has strenuously advocated for exactly this type of reform and will continue doing so in the next state legislative session. 

On fuel, we must continue to support a transition to environmentally friendlier alternative energy sources to curb both building emissions and costs. As the Climate and Community Institute has argued, New York City can lead the way in scaling up conversions to heat pumps and induction stoves, creating a market to bulk-buy these goods, thus bringing down purchasing prices in the short term and lowering operating costs over time.

On insurance, the Mamdani administration is already pursuing a city-backed insurance program for rent-stabilized buildings. Though in its early days, the city’s housing department has already initiated a Request for Expressions of Interest to help design the program and promised $100 million toward its launch. This could go a long way toward reversing the skyrocketing price of property insurance, which is by far landlords’ fasting growing cost factor.

But even before any of this takes place, the RGB’s data has been clear: most landlords are doing all right. Net Operating Income (NOI, or landlords’ revenues minus costs) grew by more than six percent last year—and that’s after they grew by 12 percent the previous year, and 10 percent the year before that. Over the long-term, rent-stabilized property ownership has been very lucrative, with inflation-adjusted NOI rising 57 percent since 1990. Roughly nine percent of rent-stabilized buildings are considered distressed, but this is well within the normal range, and the city and state have specialized programs meant to help such buildings.

As the Board’s chair Chantella Mitchell wrote in her statement explaining her vote, “The data make clear that current economic conditions place meaningful constraints on tenants, while also showing that, in aggregate, most owners remain able to meet rising costs without experiencing comparable levels of financial distress.” The rent freeze was entirely justified, and it will make a tremendous impact on millions of tenants’ lives in the coming years. We must all work together to ensure this is not the end of the story, but the beginning of a larger push toward affordability, sustainability, and justice.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

My name is David R. Jones, and I am President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the importance of maintaining a strong, independent Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) as a cornerstone of police accountability, public trust, and effective government.

I want to begin by stating clearly that supporting police accountability and supporting public safety are not competing values. The overwhelming majority of police officers serve New Yorkers honorably and professionally. But no public institution—and certainly not one with the extraordinary authority to detain, search, arrest, and use force—should be exempt from meaningful civilian oversight. A system that investigates itself cannot command public confidence.

That is precisely why the CCRB exists.

The CCRB serves as New York City's independent civilian watchdog, investigating allegations of police misconduct and providing an avenue for ordinary New Yorkers to seek accountability when they believe their rights have been violated. Its existence reflects a simple democratic principle: those entrusted with public power must be accountable to the public they serve.

This principle is especially important given the NYPD's long and well-documented history of racial disparities in policing. For decades, Black and Latino New Yorkers have borne the brunt of aggressive enforcement strategies, excessive force, unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices, and other forms of misconduct. Successive mayoral administrations have failed to adequately confront these patterns, making independent civilian oversight not merely desirable, but essential.

Unfortunately, the CCRB's effectiveness has too often been undermined.

A court-ordered disciplinary review released in 2024 concluded that officers involved in unconstitutional stop-and-frisk encounters "rarely, if ever" faced discipline, even when misconduct had been substantiated. That finding raises serious concerns about whether accountability mechanisms are functioning as intended and whether disciplinary recommendations are receiving the weight they deserve.

The problem is not simply procedural. It is about legitimacy.

When New Yorkers take the time to file complaints, participate in investigations, and cooperate with oversight bodies, they expect that the process will matter. When disciplinary findings can be disregarded or weakened, public confidence erodes. Communities become less likely to report misconduct, less likely to trust law enforcement, and less likely to believe that government institutions operate fairly.

An independent CCRB is therefore not a bureaucratic luxury. It is a critical component of government effectiveness.

Effective government requires transparency. It requires accountability. And it requires credible checks and balances. Far from creating inefficiency, independent oversight helps identify patterns of misconduct before they become costly legal liabilities, federal investigations, or crises of public trust. A strong CCRB protects both the public and the many police officers who serve with integrity by helping ensure that misconduct is addressed rather than ignored.

Recent allegations of racially disparate vehicle searches further underscore the continued need for independent monitoring and public accountability. Concerns about unequal treatment under the law cannot simply be dismissed or left solely to internal review processes. New Yorkers deserve confidence that complaints will be evaluated objectively and fairly by an entity independent of the department being investigated.

As this Commission evaluates the effectiveness of city agencies and institutions, I urge you to view the CCRB not as an expendable oversight body but as an essential safeguard of democratic governance. Weakening civilian oversight would not increase efficiency; it would weaken accountability and diminish public trust. Strengthening independence, transparency, and responsiveness, on the other hand, would improve both the legitimacy of policing and the effectiveness of city government.

New Yorkers should never have to choose between public safety and civil rights. We can—and must—have both.

A strong, independent Civilian Complaint Review Board helps make that possible.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.

Despite difficult budget constraints and competing priorities, the Council maintained support for the Managed Care Consumer Assistance Program (MCCAP), the Speaker's Initiative that sustains CSS's Health Initiatives Department, and the Next Door Project. These investments will ensure that thousands of New Yorkers continue to receive trusted assistance navigating complex health care systems, overcoming barriers created by criminal records, and accessing the services and opportunities they need to improve their lives.

The Council's investment is especially timely. As federal policies threaten health coverage for an estimated 230,000 New Yorkers through cuts to Medicaid and the Essential Plan, demand for unbiased health coverage counseling and enrollment assistance will continue to grow. MCCAP will play an increasingly vital role in helping New Yorkers understand their options, maintain coverage whenever possible, and access needed care. CSS looks forward to continuing to partner with the Council and the Mamdani Administration to ensure these services can meet rising demand.

CSS also appreciates that the city budget preserves funding for New York City Benefits (NYCB) through FY27. While the program was not baselined in this year's budget, maintaining funding will allow tens of thousands of New Yorkers to continue accessing critical public benefits. We remain committed to working with city leaders to secure permanent, multi-year funding that provides long-term stability for this essential program.

In addition, CSS applauds the decision to expand eligibility for Fair Fares from 150 percent to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. This expansion will make reduced-fare transit available to an estimated 1.3 million low-income New Yorkers, helping more residents afford transportation to work, school, health care, and other essential destinations.

Finally, after years of litigation and months of negotiations, we are pleased that the Mamdani Administration and the Council have resolved their dispute over how to reform and expand the CityFHEPS rental assistance program, meaningfully helping shelter residents and low-income tenants without straining the city’s budget. The plan finalized in the budget will put thousands of New York families on a path away from homelessness and displacement and toward housing stability.

This budget reflects New York City's continued commitment to protecting programs that advance health, economic opportunity, and equity for New Yorkers. CSS looks forward to building on this partnership with the Mamdani Administration and the Council to strengthen the City's safety net and ensure all New Yorkers have the resources they need to thrive.

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.

Mamdani must break with the past, send a message about his authority over the NYPD and restore credibility to the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), the department’s chief independent watchdog.

Let me be clear. I support law enforcement and protecting our communities. The overwhelming majority of police officers treat members of the public with respect and believe in the rule of law. That said, good policing does not give the NYPD free rein to put a boot on the neck of people of color. Crime fighting should not come at the expense of New Yorkers’ civil rights. The mayor’s stance on the CCRB – he backed away from public musings about giving the board the final say on NYPD disciplinary decisions – deserves close scrutiny.  He promised to end the NYPD’s tradition of abusive tactics that focus on Black and brown New Yorkers.  

The department’s past transgressions magnify the significance of Mamdani’s slow walk or full-out turnaround from his campaign promise to make dramatic changes at NYPD.  His pledge included doing away with a controversial gang database and removing police from explosive mental health emergencies.

The CCRB is essential to good law enforcement in light of the NYPD’s long, well-documented tradition of racialized policing, targeting Black and Latinx people for aggressive policing, excessive force and unconstitutional stop and frisk.  Every mayor since the late 1980s – Edward Koch, David Dinkins, Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Bill de Blasio and Eric Adams – all tolerated or gave wink-and-nod approval to the ugly and aggressive tactics. None of them used their bully pulpit to do the right thing. 

We’re not talking ancient history. The CCRB has been defanged in the face of recent – and ongoing – systematic misconduct.  In September 2024, a court-ordered, 500-page disciplinary review concluded city police officers who engage in unconstitutional stops and frisks “rarely, if ever” face discipline, even when the CCRB substantiated misconduct.

Independent civilian review plays an important role in civic discourse.  For some tragic reason, elected city and state officials as well as community activists no longer speak out publicly against police excesses.  For instance, there has been little public outcry in the wake of an explosive lawsuit filed this year that alleged the NYPD searched Black drivers’ cars 10 times more often than white drivers’. 

In fact, Black and Latinx drivers made up over 84 percent of reported vehicle searches between 2022 and last year, the lawsuit said.  Drivers of color were in the NYPD crosshairs without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing, said the suit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union, NAACP State Conference and Bronx Defenders. 

In recent years, police have criminalized poverty, placing a priority on predominantly Black and Latinx homeless and fare beaters, whose encounters with law enforcement tend to be tied to high inflation, income inequality and the cost of public transportation. Even so, One Police Plaza and City Hall downplay the consequences as the number of summonses and arrests skyrocket.

Former Mayor Eric Adams forced out two successive CCRB interim chairs after their vocal support for greater independence put them on the NYPD’s radar.  Two of Adams’ police commissioners short-circuited several CCRB investigations and tinkered with the NYPD discipline matrix in ways that lowered penalties for all police officers found to have committed serious offenses.  Mamdani would do well to undo the corrupt changes thereby boosting confidence in the CCRB’s independence.

Mayor Mamdani’s backpedaling from his NYPD-related campaign promises began six months ago, at his very first joint news conference with Police Commissioner Jessica Tish.  The new mayor stood silent as she defended the gang database he denounced during his campaign.  More recently, the Mayor has voiced support for making tweaks and retaining the database.  He also publicly apologized for his 2020 comments calling the NYPD “racist, anti-queer and a major threat to public safety.”

Mamdani’s reversal on CCRB independence illustrates him coming face to face with a truism that confronts every elected official and will figure in determining what type of mayor he becomes: Life often forces us to choose between doing the right thing vs. doing the expedient thing for the right reasons.  The demands of the office can corrupt with damaging effects, tempting leaders to cynically cast away their loyalties, promises and principles.

Our previous mayor fell far short in his pledge to rein in abusive behavior by police officers and hold the NYPD accountable.  Mayor Mamdani has an opportunity to send a different message to the city’s Black and brown communities, rank and file officers and the police unions: that police misconduct in any form will not be tolerated.  And it starts with demanding a strong CCRB.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

By extending eligibility to an estimated 1.3 million working-age residents, Mayor Mamdani, Speaker Menin, and the New York City Council have made transportation more affordable for hundreds of thousands of additional New Yorkers. Approximately 45 percent of those newly eligible are regular commuters, meaning this investment will lower their transit costs, help them keep more of their paychecks, and stay connected to economic opportunity.

Alongside Riders Alliance, the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA (PCAC), other advocates, and elected officials, the Community Service Society has long championed Fair Fares. Our research has consistently shown that the program helps people get to work, school, medical appointments, and other places they need to go while making it easier to afford basic necessities like housing and food.

The Mayor put it best during a City Hall press conference announcing the budget agreement: “No one should be priced out of exploring their own city.” We couldn’t agree more.

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.

• The NYC Rent Guidelines Board voted to freeze rents for one- and two-year leases in roughly one million rent-stabilized apartments.
• The decision affects over two million New Yorkers living in rent-stabilized housing.
• CSS's latest research found that 67% of low-income rent-stabilized tenants struggle to make ends meet.
• The data showed landlords' net operating income increased 6.2% last year and more than 30% over the last three years.
• The vote followed months of public hearings, reviews of economic and financial data, and testimony from tenants and landlords.

On June 25, the New York City Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) voted to freeze rents for one- and two-year leases in the city's approximately one million rent-stabilized apartments.

The decision reflects the economic realities facing rent-stabilized tenants across New York City: rents have been rising faster than incomes, and tenants have been struggling while landlords have continued to profit.

Here are four data-driven reasons that point to why a rent freeze was the correct decision.

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Community Service Society NY (@cssnyorg)

Rent-Stabilized Tenants Cannot Afford Another Increase

Rent-stabilized apartments are the most important source of housing for New Yorkers with low incomes, and many tenants living in these homes are struggling to make ends meet.

According to CSS's most recent Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Stability:

• 67 percent of rent-stabilized tenants said they are struggling to get by financially
• 83 percent said they have little or no savings
• More than half (55 percent) said they cannot afford an unexpected emergency expense

When we asked low-income New Yorkers living in rent-stabilized housing which issues they want NYC's leaders to focus on, 56 percent chose "reducing the cost of housing" as the runaway top choice. (Reducing street homelessness was second at 18 percent.)

These findings paint a clear picture of financial insecurity. For many households, even a modest rent increase would mean making difficult tradeoffs between housing and other necessities such as food, transportation, health care, and utilities.

The Need for Relief is Especially Urgent in the Bronx

The Bronx is home to the highest concentration of rent-stabilized apartments and also some of the toughest economic conditions. Unemployment rates and poverty rates are highest in the Bronx compared to other boroughs, and on average, tenants in the Bronx saw their incomes actually go down by over five percent last year, when accounting for inflation.

For the hundreds of thousands of rent-stabilized households in the Bronx, a rent freeze offers stability at a time when many families are already struggling to keep pace with the rising cost of living.

Data Shows That Rent-Stabilized Landlords Remain Financially Stable

Landlords are not facing a widespread financial crisis.

Net operating incomes for rent-stabilized apartments went up 6 percent over the past year, following increases of 12 percent and 10 percent in the previous two years. In total, this compounds into an overall net operating income growth of more than 30 percent over the past three years.

At the same time, rent collection rates have increased citywide while the share of distressed buildings declined and remains at the historical median for the last 35 years.

The Long-Term Trends Support a Freeze

Over the long term, the Rent Guidelines Board's data shows that landlords' finances have remained strong while rents have consistently risen.

According to the RGB's 2026 Income and Expense Study, landlords' net operating income has increased by 56.6 percent since 1990 after adjusting for inflation. In Brooklyn, net operating income has gone up by 168 percent over the same period.

These long-term trends demonstrate that rent-stabilized housing has remained profitable over time. While operating costs have fluctuated, landlords' incomes have grown substantially in the short- and long-term term, even after accounting for inflation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) vote to do?

The Rent Guidelines Board voted to freeze rents for one- and two-year leases in New York City's approximately one million rent-stabilized apartments.

How many apartments are affected?

The decision applies to approximately one million rent-stabilized apartments in New York City. It does not affect any other units.

Who lives in rent-stabilized housing?

Rent-stabilized apartments are open to all New Yorkers who can afford them, but they house a significant share of New York City's low- and moderate-income households and are one of the city's most important sources of low-cost housing. These units house the largest number of low-income tenants of any housing type in the city, as well as the largest numbers of Black and Latino New Yorkers.

What is the CSS Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security?

The CSS Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security surveys New Yorkers statewide every year on issues such as housing, employment, public benefits, finances, and policy views. The most recent edition surveyed 4,000 adults, including 2,000 New York City residents, between September 9 and October 2, 2025. The margin of error is +/- 1.55% at the 95% confidence level.

What is net operating income (NOI)?

Net operating income (NOI) is a measure of a building's income after operating expenses are paid. It does not account for debt service. The Rent Guidelines Board uses NOI as a key indicator of buildings' financial conditions.

How often does the Rent Guidelines Board vote on rents?

The Rent Guidelines Board votes annually on allowable rent increases for rent-stabilized apartments after reviewing economic data and holding public hearings. This year's decision applies only to eligible rent-stabilized lease renewals that commence on or after October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027.

Sign up for the CSS newsletter

Rent stabilized apartments house the largest number of low-income tenants of any housing program, as well as the largest numbers of Black and Latino New Yorkers. After four years in which the RGB raised rents by a cumulative 12.6 percent, our Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security showed that a great many rent-stabilized tenants were struggling to make ends meet, with two thirds of low-income stabilized tenants straining financially and over four in five reporting that they have little or no emergency savings.

This rent freeze will be particularly impactful to them and may well prevent a swell of evictions and homelessness. As our research has shown, stable rents are tremendously impactful to tenants. Thanks to the Rent Guidelines Board, life in New York City just got a little more stable.

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.

As coverage changes take effect, the Community Service Society of New York (CSS) is urging affected New Yorkers not to assume they have no options and to seek assistance as soon as possible.

CSS operates the Managed Care Consumer Assistance Program (MCCAP), a free helpline and network of 20 community-based organizations (CBOs) that help New York City’s most vulnerable populations navigate the health care system, access free and low-cost care options, understand complex coverage rules, resolve medical debts, appeal insurance denials for care, and resolve cost of care issues.

“Losing health coverage can be confusing and overwhelming, but New Yorkers do not have to navigate these changes alone,” said David R. Jones, President and CEO of CSS. “Many people will have questions about whether they qualify for other coverage programs, how to transition to a new health plan, or what financial assistance may be available. We strongly encourage anyone who receives a notice about losing their Essential Plan coverage to reach out for help before making decisions about their health insurance.”

New Yorkers who have questions about their health insurance or who are affected by the loss of Essential Plan coverage can contact MCCAP for free assistance at 888-614-5400

CSS encourages community organizations, health care providers, elected officials, and advocates to share MCCAP’s helpline information widely to ensure that New Yorkers affected by these changes receive the assistance they need to maintain access to care.

###

HR1, driven by Republicans in Washington, is totally responsible for the gutting of public health programs. 

State lawmakers almost saved the day by identifying state funding to fill the federal void through the now over state budget process. More than 100 legislators signed a letter, led by the Chairs of the Assembly and Senate Health Committees urging Governor Hochul to include legislation based on S9589/A10926 in the final state budget.  

Allowing half a million New Yorkers to lose coverage is penny-wise and pound-foolish. For many of these residents, losing coverage does not mean losing the need for health care. They will now need to rely on already overcrowded hospital emergency departments and community health centers when their health problems become crises, all of which will be ultimately more costly than the cost of preserving coverage through S9589/A10926.

My organization, the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), estimates that the total cost from Essential Plan coverage losses due to new uncompensated costs, loss of revenue, increased reliance on emergency rooms, and delayed treatment and preventable hospitalizations could be $2–$2.2 billion annually — over three times as expensive as providing coverage as proposed in S9589/A10926. 

The consequences will be felt across the state, but nowhere more harshly than in New York City, where nearly 230,000 of the affected enrollees live. As more residents become uninsured, the city’s public hospitals and community providers will be asked to care for a growing number of uninsured patients without a reliable source of reimbursement. The result will be greater strain on a safety-net system that is already facing significant challenges.

At the same time, programs that help consumers navigate the health care system will become more important than ever. The Managed Care Consumer Assistance Program (MCCAP), operated by CSS, is on the front lines of this unfolding crisis. CSS’s helpline is listed as a resource in the disenrollment notices being sent to affected Essential Plan members, and we are already seeing the impact.

Calls from Essential Plan enrollees have increased by approximately 50 percent as people seek answers about their options, eligibility for other forms of coverage, and access to affordable care. We expect those numbers to rise substantially after July 1 as coverage losses take effect. New Yorkers who have questions about their coverage options or need help navigating the transition should contact MCCAP’s helpline at 888-614-5400 for free, unbiased assistance.

New York has long prided itself on being a national leader in expanding access to health care coverage. This year, it missed an opportunity to demonstrate that leadership. The state can still correct course next year and create a new pathway to coverage for those being left behind.

At CSS, we will continue helping affected New Yorkers navigate the challenges ahead, and we will continue to fight for inclusion of  S9589/A10926 in the coming budget year when lawmakers return to Albany in early 2027, when even more New Yorkers will begin to lose insurance under additional HR1 imposed hurdles to keeping Medicaid coverage that start then. 

The coverage may be ending for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers on July 1. Our commitment to them is not.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years, and a member of the MTA Board. The views in this column are solely those of the writer. The New Majority is available on CSS’s Web site: www.cssny.org

HR1, driven by Republicans in Washington, is totally responsible for the gutting of public health programs. 

State lawmakers almost saved the day by identifying state funding to fill the federal void through the now over state budget process. More than 100 legislators signed a letter, led by the Chairs of the Assembly and Senate Health Committees urging Governor Hochul to include legislation based on S9589/A10926 in the final state budget.  

Allowing half a million New Yorkers to lose coverage is penny-wise and pound-foolish. For many of these residents, losing coverage does not mean losing the need for health care. People will still get sick. They will still need medications, treatment, and preventive services. The difference is that more of them will delay care until conditions worsen or turn to already overcrowded hospital emergency departments and community health centers when their health problems become crises, all of which will be ultimately more costly than the cost of preserving coverage through S9589/A10926.

The message from lawmakers was simple: New York should not stand by while nearly half a million residents lose health coverage through no fault of their own. Unfortunately, that message was not reflected in the final budget this year.  That said, CSS will continue to fight for its inclusion in the coming budget year when lawmakers return to Albany in early 2027, when even more New Yorkers will begin to lose insurance under additional HR1 imposed hurdles to keeping Medicaid coverage that start then. 

My organization, the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), estimates that Essential Plan coverage losses will generate between $794 million and $940 million annually in new uncompensated care costs borne by hospitals, taxpayers, and the health care system. Community health centers, already operating on thin margins, stand to lose roughly $100 million in revenue attributable to these coverage losses. At the same time, increased reliance on emergency rooms could add another $218 million in costs, while delayed treatment and preventable hospitalizations could result in nearly $1 billion in additional inpatient charges. The total cost will be an estimated $2–$2.2 billion annually — over three times as expensive as providing coverage as proposed in S9589/A10926. 

The consequences will be felt across the state, but nowhere more harshly than in New York City, where nearly 230,000 of the affected enrollees live. As more residents become uninsured, the city’s public hospitals and community providers will be asked to care for a growing number of uninsured patients without a reliable source of reimbursement. The result will be greater strain on a safety-net system that is already facing significant challenges.

At the same time, programs that help consumers navigate the health care system will become more important than ever. The Managed Care Consumer Assistance Program (MCCAP), operated by CSS, is on the front lines of this unfolding crisis. CSS’s helpline is listed as a resource in the disenrollment notices being sent to affected Essential Plan members, and we are already seeing the impact.

Calls from Essential Plan enrollees have increased by approximately 50 percent as people seek answers about their options, eligibility for other forms of coverage, and access to affordable care. We expect those numbers to rise substantially after July 1 as coverage losses take effect. New Yorkers who have questions about their coverage options or need help navigating the transition should contact MCCAP’s helpline at 888-614-5400 for free, unbiased assistance.

New York has long prided itself on being a national leader in expanding access to health care coverage. This year, it missed an opportunity to demonstrate that leadership. The state can still correct course next year and create a new pathway to coverage for those being left behind. These New Yorkers are not going away. And even more will be joining their ranks.  New  Yorkers’  health care needs are not going away, and neither are the economic consequences of leaving them uninsured.

At CSS, we will continue helping affected New Yorkers navigate the challenges ahead, and we will continue advocating alongside legislative champions, providers, and community organizations until the state fulfills its responsibility to protect low-income residents from losing health coverage.

The coverage may be ending for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers on July 1. Our commitment to them is not.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

Vic’s legacy is multi-faceted. He mentored numerous researchers at CSS who have gone on to become experts in their fields. And because of him, CSS can boast of having some of the finest housing analysts in New York. He authored ground-breaking reports on homelessness, documented the enormous rent burdens on the poor, and unmasked the devastating impact of government divestment in the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA).

He was widely known and respected by housing professionals, policymakers, government housing agencies, tenant leaders, public housing residents, the legal community, unions, advocates and journalists. Through his research, Vic shed light on the housing conditions of the city’s extremely poor and worked with community leaders and grassroots organizations to preserve tenant protections and fight back against efforts to de-regulate public housing. He deeply believed that public housing residents and low-income New Yorkers should have safe, decent and affordable housing. To that end, he worked tirelessly to strengthen residents’ rights, including advocating for technical resources to support tenant groups fighting to preserve their buildings, as well as making the case for rent-regulation and government housing subsidies as bulwarks against the displacement of residents.

Few housing leaders have done more to engage residents, standing with them and behind them in their fight for housing justice. Vic was there at late evening meetings, on long bus rides to Albany and Washington, at rallies, and behind the scenes offering technical support.

Vic received his Ph.D. from MIT and taught at the University of Texas and The New School for Social Research before joining CSS in 1983. At CSS, with its emphasis on using compelling research to drive advocacy, Vic found the place to realize his goal of fusing policy analysis with grassroots organizing. He was a stalwart in the fight to empower residents, and for the preservation and expansion of affordable housing for the lowest income New Yorkers. He helped secure hundreds of millions of dollars in operating and capital funds for NYCHA and helped found the New York City Public Housing Resident Alliance to organize and inform public housing residents. Over his distinguished career, Vic authored numerous influential reports, all with the collective purpose of improving housing conditions for the city’s low-income residents.

CSS is proud and grateful for all of Vic’s contributions, and we extend our heartfelt  condolences to his family and friends.

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.

A new Community Service Society of New York (CSS) report documenting the critical role housing plays in creating stable and diverse communities in the state and across the country found that a majority of New Yorkers  – including 70 percent of Republicans – support allowing mixed-status families to live together in subsidized housing.

The issue of whether mixed-status families – households with both eligible and ineligible immigration statuses – should be able to live in federally subsidized housing comes at a time when New York is facing a severe shortage of affordable housing, especially for low-income families. It also underscores the stark differences in federal and local policy priorities with the Mamdani Administration pledging to expand housing opportunities for residents and the Trump Administration slashing federal housing aid and placing restrictions on who can live in subsidized housing.  

The report, “What New Yorkers Want: Housing Stability, Diverse Communities, and Support for Immigrant Families,” which is based on findings from CSS’s 2025 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security highlights how federal subsidies provide physical and emotional stability for New Yorkers and measures the impact housing affordability is having on U.S. families. It warns that the 17 percent cut to the Public Housing Operating Fund included in the FY26 federal budget, combined with new HUD directives enforcing strict citizenship verifications and the elimination of mixed immigration status households, will force many families to choose between eviction and separation.

 Key Findings from the report include:

• Seventy-two (72) percent of New Yorkers statewide – and 70 percent of Republicans – want U.S. citizens to continue to receive rental assistance even if they are in mixed-status families;
• Approximately 60 percent of Americans and 67 percent of New Yorkers believe it is important to live in a community with diverse backgrounds.
• Thirty-four (34) percent of New York households with housing subsidies reported reduced stress and anxiety because of the housing programs;
• Thirty-five (35) percent credit subsidized housing with allowing them to stay in their homes longer;
• Thirty-seven (37) percent of residents nationwide reported needing assistance to pay for rent, mortgage, or utilities, illustrating a widespread affordability crisis. 

“Anti-immigrant policies have unfortunately been a hallmark of this Administration, and it is reflected in cruel and punitive federal policies that treat low-income and immigrant families as undeserving of things like safe and decent housing,” said David R. Jones, CSS President and CEO. “This report makes clear that tenants in New York and across the nation are hurting because of housing costs, and by large numbers, don’t want to see immigrant families targeted for disparate treatment.”

 A Risk of Losing Housing Assistance Entirely

 Section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act restricts federal housing aid to U.S. citizens and certain eligible noncitizens. Yet, historically mixed-status families could still receive prorated assistance – subsidy only for eligible family members. The rent share paid by mixed use families typically exceed 30 percent of their household income (the standard used by PHAs to ensure that low-income families would not be overburdened by housing costs).  New enforcement measures proposed by the Trump Administration would eliminate or sharply limit this proration, making entire households ineligible unless every member qualifies. Loss of subsidies would likely lead to evictions, overcrowding, or homelessness, especially given limited housing alternatives.

 “If enacted, the proposed rule changes issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development will intentionally and cruelly manufacture mass displacement and destabilize thousands of families and neighborhoods across the five boroughs,” said Iziah Thompson CSS senior policy analyst. “Rather than addressing the housing affordability crisis, these proposals would deepen it.”

 The report makes the following recommendations:

• Reverse the 17 percent operating cut: Restore the baseline funding that provides stability for over a quarter of the public housing resident population.
• Push back on any rule change to Section 214 that harms immigrant families: Align federal policy with the clear majority—72 percent—of New Yorkers who support allowing mixed-status families to live together in federally subsidized housing.
• Oppose the work requirements and time limit for federal housing programs: Agencies are having trouble administering federal programs, and the U.S. housing crisis is making an affordable life difficult. Oppose policies that add to these problems and increase homelessness.
• Maintain Section 8 momentum: Continue the robust funding for renewals that has garnered bipartisan support.
• Public Housing Agencies must take steps to ensure the safety and stability of all residents while following the law.

 The 2025 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security surveyed 4,000 adults statewide between September 9 and October 2, 2025. Surveys were offered in English, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and Haitian Creole via online panels, phone, and text recruitment. Results were weighted by region to reflect the demographic composition of New York State adults. The margin of error is +/- 1.55% at the 95% confidence level.  A survey of 1,000 adults nationwide was fielded September 9-28, 2025 with a margin of error of +/- 3.1% at the 95% confidence level. The survey was conducted online of a sample of American adults with quotas in place to ensure that the survey was reflective of the population among demographics such as age, race/ethnicity, gender, region, and household income.

###

 The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org. 

This important investment will strengthen statewide support for higher education institutions and student loan borrowers working to stay on track financially while navigating the growing burden of student debt. At a time when one in four borrowers faces default, expanding EDCAP is critical to protecting New Yorkers’ financial stability and supporting the state’s long-term economic security.

CSS also appreciates the continued investment in the organization’s vital consumer assistance programs that provide critical services and support to New Yorkers across the state, including Community Health Advocates (CHA), the Community Health Access to Addiction and Mental Healthcare Project (CHAMP), the Independent Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Ombuds program (IDDO), and the Next Door Project (NDP). These programs play an essential role in helping New Yorkers access health care, protect their rights, maintain economic stability, and navigate increasingly complex systems during times of significant need.

While the budget makes meaningful investments in financial security initiatives, it ultimately falls short of addressing some of the most urgent challenges facing low-income New Yorkers, particularly the looming loss of health coverage for hundreds of thousands of residents.

The state budget does not include funding to preserve health coverage for nearly 500,000 Essential Plan enrollees who are set to lose coverage beginning July 1. At a time when New Yorkers are already facing rising costs and growing uncertainty, the loss of affordable health coverage for hundreds of thousands of low-income residents will have devastating consequences for families, providers, and the overall health care system. New York has been a national leader in expanding access to coverage and reducing the uninsured rate, and this budget represents a missed opportunity to protect those gains and ensure continuity of care for vulnerable communities across the state.

And despite a continuing housing affordability crisis that threatens the economic security of households across New York, the budget does not include an expansion of the Housing Access Voucher Program (HAVP). Expanding access to housing stability programs remains essential to preventing displacement and homelessness for low-income households.

As we close out a protracted state budget session that stretched nearly two months beyond the statutory due date, one thing that is crystal clear is that detrimental federal policies intended to punish states like New York hold dire consequences for the most vulnerable citizens among us. With that in mind, CSS remains committed to advocating for the nearly 500,000 New Yorkers being left uninsured as a result of the egregious impact of HR1. Specifically, we will continue working closely with our state leaders on policy solutions that make health care available to those who are losing it, while re-doubling our efforts to preserve affordable health coverage for New Yorkers and protect the state’s historic progress in reducing the uninsured rate. CSS will also continue pushing for an expansion of the Housing Access Voucher Program (HAVP) to ensure more low-income New Yorkers can access the housing support necessary to remain safely and stably housed.

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.

That is why the prospect that the state could pass a budget that knowingly allows nearly half a million New Yorkers to lose health insurance on July 1 should alarm everyone who cares about the state’s future.

Unless the legislature and the Governor act decisively, 430,000 working-class New Yorkers, and a 21,000 lawfully present immigrants, will lose coverage as a direct result of federal cuts to public health programs, including the Essential Plan. These are not abstractions. They are home health aides, restaurant workers, gig workers, delivery drivers, childcare workers and parents raising young families — people who go to work every day, pay taxes and keep the state running. Losing coverage means postponed care, untreated chronic conditions, medical debt, more visits to overwhelmed emergency rooms and financial instability that can ripple across entire communities.

What makes this looming crisis so difficult to accept is that New York has the means to prevent it. Gov. Kathy Hochul’s executive budget recognized the seriousness of the federal threat and responsibly set aside $2.4 billion to mitigate coverage losses stemming from H.R.1. That funding reflects an understanding that protecting health coverage is not only a moral imperative but also sound fiscal policy: uninsured New Yorkers ultimately cost the state more through uncompensated care, emergency room crowding and lost productivity.

Even more striking is that clear, workable solutions are already on the table. Last month, the state Senate and Assembly introduced companion bills, S9589 and A10926, that would preserve health coverage for approximately 450,000 New Yorkers. These proposals are grounded in a detailed analysis by the Community Service Society of New York, which outlined multiple options the state could adopt to maintain coverage at a cost of under $400 million — well within the resources already included in the governor’s executive budget. The legislation has attracted significant support — 95% of the state Senate majority and 75% of the Assembly majority signed on as co-sponsors, an acknowledgement of how important this issue is.

Allowing these solutions to languish while coverage expires would be a profound failure of governance and penny-wise and pound-foolish. Research indicates that allowing half a million New Yorkers to become uninsured would be three times as expensive as providing coverage as proposed in S9589/A10926 because of increased uncompensated care, lost community health center revenue, increased emergency room use and overcrowding, and impact of patients delaying care.

The Essential Plan, in particular, has been one of New York’s quiet success stories. It has provided comprehensive, affordable coverage to low-income adults who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to absorb private insurance premiums and cost-sharing. Stripping away that coverage without a state-level replacement would unravel years of progress in reducing the state’s uninsured rate, improving access to preventive care and narrowing racial health disparities.

Budget negotiations are always complex, and lawmakers face genuine competing priorities. But not all choices carry the same moral and economic weight. Preserving health insurance for hundreds of thousands of residents is not a marginal issue to be set aside for convenience; it is a test of the state’s values.

The choice before state leaders is stark but simple: Use the tools and resources already at hand to protect health coverage for 450,000 New Yorkers or allow callous federal cuts to dictate outcomes that undermine families and communities across the state. New York should choose to lead, not retreat — and it should do so before the coverage clock runs out.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years, and a member of the MTA Board. The views in this column are solely those of the writer. The New Majority is available on CSS’s Web site: www.cssny.org

The changes mean bigger monthly payments, lifetime caps on borrowing and harsh collection measures as student loan delinquencies and defaults soar to record levels.  Consider this: one borrower defaults every nine seconds – we’re talking about hardworking teachers, nurses, union members and veterans — young and old, urban and rural, Black and White.

It also means more aspiring students must depend on private student debt lenders, who are the big winners in the policy changes. Yet, 40 percent of Americans do not qualify for private student loans, according to research by the Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers.

Make no mistake, the federal government is putting the squeeze on students and working people with student debt who are already struggling to make ends meet. As a consequence of these policies, more Black and Brown people are going to have limited opportunities to pursue higher education because it will be financially out of reach. Add to that the alarming number of student loan borrowers who themselves are victims of unscrupulous lenders and may face crushing debt the remainder of their lives.

Recently released Department of Education data shows that by the end of last year, roughly a quarter of the 43 million recipients of federal student loans were significantly behind in their payments.  About 7.7 million borrowers nationwide had defaulted on $181 billion in student loans, the data said.  In New York, about 11 percent of New York’s 2.4 million borrowers were in default by late 2025, rising to over 19 percent when including those in severe delinquency, the data shows.  Those with loans over 270 days past due face involuntary collections, including wage garnishment without a court order, adverse credit reporting, seizer of their tax refunds and, for seniors, deductions from their social security payments.

Governor Hochul and the New York State Legislature deserve credit for helping student borrowers by funding the Education Debt Consumer Assistance Program (EDCAP), the first-in-the-nation state certified student loan assistance program.  Run by my organization, the Community Service Society, it offers free assistance to borrowers trying to navigate their loan repayment and forgiveness options. 

If you’re behind in your loan payments, take action now to contain the damage. Contact EDCAP at 888-614-5004 or schedule an appointment online. Borrowers in default may be able to rehabilitate or consolidate their loans to get out of default, but it’s important to get expert help to choose the best option.  

EDCAP’s clients are overwhelmingly women, half have household incomes below $60,000, and 45 percent are Black or Latino/a. Among New York City’s indebted, 13.6 percent owe less than $5,000, while 22.7 percent owe an average of $28,287, according to the New York Federal Reserve Bank’s most recent household credit update. That may not seem like a ton of money, but it represents a huge burden on top of rent, child care, food, commuting costs, health care and other daily necessities.  It also represents a significant barrier to saving, starting families, buying homes, and further education.

Trump officials argue their revamp of student loans “lower college costs” and makes repayment easier.  They argue limiting loans will force colleges to lower tuition.  Nothing could be further from reality.

Millions of student-loan borrowers face significantly higher monthly payments beginning July 1 as the Trump administration winds down the most generous income-based repayment plan, Saving on a Valuable Education Plan (SAVE).  It is being replaced by two options: a revised version of the existing standard plan or a new program that charges a flat percentage of gross annual income called the Repayment Assistance Plan (or RAP). There are also new limitations on Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF).

Beginning this summer, aspiring students face new lifetime federal loan caps: $20,500 annually ($100,000 total) for graduate students, $50,000 annually ($200,000 total) for professional degrees, and $20,000 annually for Parent PLUS loans.    That is not enough to make ends meet, especially for low-income and out-of-state students.  The average total cost of attendance  (tuition, fees, room, and board) for a four-year degree  ranges from more than $108,000 for public to over $230,000 for private.

Perhaps the most troubling change is the Trump administration’s move of the nation’s federal student loan portfolio from the Education Department to the Treasury Department, which has powerful tools to collect from millions of borrowers who are in default. Unlike other debt, bankruptcy protections are limited and there is no statute of limitation on the collection of student loans.

The current policy shift is an about-face from the Biden administration, which introduced policies to reduce monthly bills and canceled $138 billion in student debt for 5.3 million borrowers. 

Today, the situation facing student borrowers is poised to get worse. Fortunately, the state’s support of EDCAP means New Yorkers have a resource to help mitigate the effects of harmful federal policies out of touch with the struggles of those trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org

In anticipation of devastating federal cuts to public health programs initiated by the enactment of H.R.1, Governor Hochul included $2.4 billion in contingency funds in her FY27 executive budget. By doing so, the governor ensured that the state had the tools to shield low-income, working-class New Yorkers from the harmful consequences of federal policy.

We urge the Governor to make full use of these resources to preserve life-saving health coverage for nearly half a million New Yorkers who are being thrown off the state’s Essential Plan and rendered permanently ineligible for coverage as a result of H.R.1.

These are the home health aides, restaurant workers, gig workers delivery drivers, childcare workers and working parents raising young families – people who go to work every day, pay taxes and keep the state running.

In a letter today signed by a majority of state lawmakers in both chambers, the respective chairs of the State Senate and Assembly Health Committees called on the Governor to address the coverage loss crisis created by H.R.1 and not allow callous federal cuts to dictate outcomes that undermine families and communities across the state. Legislation sponsored by State Senator Gustavo Rivera and State Assemblymember Amy Paulin offer a framework for preserving coverage for 444,000 working families and 21,000 lawfully present immigrants at risk of losing health coverage. It would cost the state as little as $393 million in FY27 – well within the resources already included in the Governor’s executive budget.

Governor Hochul can reverse the outcomes for nearly half a million New Yorkers who are facing the loss of insurance come July 1. Not only is protecting health coverage for this population a moral imperative, it is also sound fiscal policy: uninsured New Yorkers ultimately cost the state more through uncompensated care, emergency room crowding, higher uninsured rates and lost productivity. Not to mention the needless fear and stress put on families who will have to make impossible choices between seeing a doctor and paying rent.

There is a solution to this crisis. All that’s needed is the political will to do it.

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.

Citizen Action of New York is a grassroots membership organization dedicated to achieving social, racial, economic, and environmental justice by fighting systemic oppression, such as racism and greed. Their mission is to build power for justice, improve lives through community organizing, and push for progressive policy change

Make the Road New York (MRNY) builds the power of immigrant and working-class communities to achieve dignity and justice through organizing, policy innovation, transformative education, and survival services. We have 30,000+ members and operate five community centers in Bushwick, Brooklyn; Jackson Heights, Queens; Port Richmond, Staten Island; Brentwood, Long Island; and White Plains, Westchester County.

The report, Making Transit Work for Low-Income New Yorkers, is based on findings from a recent CSS survey of 1,653 New York City residents who currently receive SNAP benefits, Cash Assistance, or CityFHEPS housing vouchers. Survey respondents were asked about their experiences with the Fair Fares program, which provides half-priced MTA bus and subway fares to New York City residents, ages 18 to 64, with incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty line.

While the survey shows that Fair Fares is an important support for many households, it also reveals that affordability remains a major challenge. For example, nearly two in three Fair Fares users reported that even with the 50 percent discount, many say they struggle to cover the costs of public transportation. And among the population of New Yorkers already connected to public assistance programs and eligible for the program, more than one in three reported not being enrolled in Fair Fares.

If the program is not reaching the population of New Yorkers already engaged with the public benefits system, it is unlikely to reach the hundreds of thousands of eligible New Yorkers who are not on public assistance – at least not without reforms to how the program is implemented.

“These findings make clear that Fair Fares is not reaching everyone it is designed to serve,“ said David R. Jones, CSS President and CEO. “When eligible New Yorkers are already receiving city or state benefits, no one should have to jump through additional hoops just to afford a bus or subway ride. Public transit is a necessity, not a luxury, for low-income New Yorkers. The city’s public transit system should be a gateway to economic opportunity, not a barrier.”

To address shortcomings in the Fare Fairs program, the report offers several recommendations, including:

Automatic enrollment of New Yorkers who are already determined eligible through programs such as SNAP, Cash Assistance, or CityFHEPS, to significantly increase participation and reduce administrative barriers.
Making Fair Fares free for New Yorkers with incomes under 150 percent of the federal poverty level, recognizing that even half-priced fares can be unaffordable for families facing deep economic hardship.
Making the city’s buses free was supported by two-thirds of public assistance recipients who complained about bus speeds. Free buses would eliminate fare payment at the door, speed up boarding, reduce wait times and make every route faster.
Investments to improve bus and subway reliability and safety – especially in outer-borough communities with limited transit alternatives.

“The Fair Fares program has already proven its value as a transformative program, “ said Rachel Swaner, CSS Vice President for Policy, Research and Advocacy and co-author of the report. “The next step is to ensure that it reaches everyone who needs it and that the cost of getting around the city is no longer a financial strain to New Yorkers who most rely on our mass transit system to get to school, work and everywhere they need to be.”

Survey Methodology: The Making Transit Work report cites data from the 2026 NYC Benefits Survey which was conducted by CSS in partnership with the polling firm Seven Letter Insight.  The survey sample featured 1,653 New Yorkers currently receiving SNAP, Cash Assistance or CityFHEPS housing vouchers, and was conducted between January 7 and February 9, 2026. The margin of error was 2.16 percentage points.  

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion a more equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. www.cssny.org 

Thank you to Speaker Menin, General Welfare Chair Hudson, and Transportation Chair Abreu and to all the Committee members for this opportunity. My name is Rachel Swaner, and I am the Vice President of Policy, Research, and Advocacy at the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), an organization dedicated to helping everyday New Yorkers achieve economic security and well-being, leading to a stronger and more equitable New York.

Fair Fares is one of the city’s most important tools for making New York more affordable. For hundreds of thousands of low-income New Yorkers, it reduces the cost of getting to work, school, medical appointments, and other essential activities.

But our latest research shows that while the program is making a meaningful difference, it is still not reaching everyone who needs it—and for many who are enrolled, the discount is not enough.

In January and February of this year, we surveyed 1,653 New Yorkers receiving SNAP, Cash Assistance, or CityFHEPS—populations that closely overlap with those eligible for Fair Fares. We asked whether they were enrolled in Fair Fares and how the program affects their daily lives.

First, on access: more than one in three respondents did not have Fair Fares.

These are New Yorkers who are already connected to public benefits and interacting with city systems. If the program is not reaching a third of people in this group, it is unlikely to reach the many eligible residents who are not connected to services—at least not without changes to how the program is administered.

Second, on impact: for those who do have Fair Fares, the program is clearly helping.

Nearly all respondents said the discount makes it easier to get around, and more than four in five said it helps them cover other essential expenses like housing, food, and utilities. These are meaningful improvements to people’s ability to manage daily life.

But the data also make clear that the current 50 percent discount is not sufficient.

Sixty-four percent of Fair Fares users told us that even with the discount, it is still hard to afford public transportation when they need it. In other words, even at half price, transit remains out of reach for many of the city’s lowest-income residents.

Respondents reinforced this in their own words. Many called for deeper discounts or for the program to be free entirely. As one Queens rider put it, “Even with half off, it’s 3 bucks a day for a round trip. That’s a lot.” And in the Bronx, one respondent stated it should be “100% free for people receiving any benefits from HRA.”

We also heard about barriers in the application and renewal process. Respondents described the process as lengthy, complicated, and slow, and some reported delays that caused their benefits to lapse.

Taken together, these findings point to two clear priorities.

First, the city should automatically enroll eligible residents in Fair Fares.

Eligibility closely overlaps with programs like SNAP and Cash Assistance, which are administered by the same city agency. New Yorkers should not have to apply separately for benefits they are already known to qualify for. For that reason, we support Intro 0248, which would create a system to automatically enroll individuals in city-created benefit programs. We applaud Chair Hudson for championing this issue.

Second, the city should make transit free for the lowest-income New Yorkers.

Our data show that even a 50 percent discount is not enough for many households struggling to meet basic needs. Expanding Fair Fares to fully cover the cost of transit for those under 150 percent of the federal poverty level would ensure that the program truly meets the needs of the people it is designed to serve.

Fair Fares has already proven its value. The next step is to ensure that it reaches everyone who needs it and that the cost of getting around the city is no longer a barrier to stability and opportunity.

Thank you again for your time, and please reach out to me at rswaner@cssny.org if you have any questions.

A new report from the Community Service Society of New York takes a closer look at gig work across New York State. What we found is that gig work is becoming a core part of how people get by. One in five New Yorkers now earns money through gig platforms, and for half of those workers, it’s their main source of income.

And importantly, not everyone is doing this work at the same rate. Workers of color are more likely to be in the gig economy than white workers, reflecting the same patterns we see across the labor market—higher unemployment, fewer stable job opportunities, and more reliance on unstable, low-security work to make ends meet.

That context matters because it shapes how people experience gig work. When you don’t have other options, you have less room to say no.

What our survey shows is that gig work today is defined less by flexibility and more by control—exercised not by a human boss, but by the app that assigns jobs, sets pay, and tracks how workers are doing.

Concerns About Racialized Ratings Bias Affecting Earnings and Hiring

Nearly four in five gig workers said the app pushes them to work longer hours or at specific times through alerts, bonuses, and other incentives. Seventy percent said the app controls when, where, and how much they work, and 69 percent said they feel constantly monitored while working. The app is always watching, always measuring, always adjusting. That can mean chasing a bonus late into the night, waiting on a street corner for the next order, or worrying that one bad rating could cost you the next day’s pay.

And they’re right to be concerned. Two-thirds of gig workers in our survey said they worry that customer ratings reflect bias based on race, gender, or language. Those ratings directly affect earnings, the jobs they’re offered, and even whether they can keep working at all.

In other words, bias doesn’t just shape how workers are managed, it shapes how much they earn.

For Black workers in particular, this is not a new story. We’ve long seen how discrimination operates in hiring, wages, and workplace discipline. What’s new is that this power is built into apps and systems that workers can’t easily see or challenge.

At the same time, gig workers are dealing with high levels of financial insecurity. Compared to other workers, they are more likely to be in debt, more likely to struggle to make ends meet, and less likely to be able to cover even a $400 emergency expense. 

That combination—financial pressure and control by the app—is what makes this moment so urgent.

The good news is that New York City has already started to act.

In recent years, the city has set minimum pay standards for app-based delivery workers, as well as new protections when workers are removed from the app, requiring companies to give notice and a reason before cutting off someone’s access to work. These are significant steps forward.

The opening of the Deliveristas Hub down by City Hall is another important step forward. Built through years of organizing by Worker’s Justice Project and Los Deliveristas Unidos, the hub gives delivery workers a place to rest, recharge their e-bikes, learn about their rights, and connect with one another—something that’s been missing in a job where workers are often on their own and always moving. These gains reflect sustained organizing by workers themselves.

But the reality is that these policies are still limited, and they don’t yet address the core issue: how platforms use algorithms to control the work itself and the people doing it. 

If gig work is going to remain a major part of New York’s economy—and all signs suggest that it will—then we need to set standards not just for wages, but for how decisions are made, how data is used, and how people are treated. A good start would be for policymakers to establish a statewide regulatory framework addressing algorithmic management that ensures that app-based systems governing pay, discipline, and access to work are subject to enforceable standards of transparency, fairness and accountability.

Right now, companies set the rules, enforce them through systems workers can’t see, and those rules hit hardest for workers already facing economic and racial inequality.

We’ve seen this kind of power before in jobs where Black and Latino workers have long been overrepresented. The tools have just changed.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

• Impose a 30-day time limit of housing assistance for mixed-status families
• Allow public housing agencies and landlords receiving Section 8 subsidies to impose:
  • a requirement that non-senior adult residents work a minimum number of hours, with some exceptions
  • a time limit on how long a household can remain in the program, after which they would lose their subsidy and be subject to eviction

It is important to understand that these are proposed rules. Presidents and federal agencies may submit rule changes to the Federal Register.

After a proposed rule change is posted, the public has an opportunity to comment. Following the public comment period, the administration and agencies review comments and may or may not submit a final rule. This final rule will explain when and how any changes are to be implemented.

The mixed status family rule change comments were due on April 21st but the two other proposed rule changes are currently in the public comment period until May 1, 2026. For this reason, it is crucial to understand exactly what the administration is proposing.

What is the title of the proposed rule and what agency submitted it?

The rule change is titled, “Establishing Flexibility for Implementation of Work Requirements and Term Limits” and can be found by looking up the Regulation ID Number (RIN): 2501-AE15. The US Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) submitted it on 03/02/2026.
 

What regulations are changed by the proposal?

The proposal alters the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically Title 24, which holds all HUD regulations. Within Title 24, parts 5, 960, 982, and 983, which dictate general HUD rules and waivers, admissions and occupancy rules, Project-based Voucher rules, and Tenant-Based Voucher rules, respectively.
 

Which programs do these rules specifically apply to?

All three of the mentioned program changes would apply to both public housing (Section 9 units) and Housing Choice Voucher or Section 8 (project-based and tenant-based vouchers). This includes:

• any housing owned and operated by a Public Housing Authority (PHA), like the New York Housing Authority (NYCHA) through the Section 9 or Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) (formerly Section 8)
• units receiving HCV voucher subsidy
  • Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) and Project Based Vouchers (PBV)

(Certain Special Purpose Vouchers are exempt from the proposed rule, such as HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH)).
 

Who would the work requirement rule apply to?

The rule would only apply to residents in the aforementioned programs between the ages of 18 and 61, with some exceptions. The rule would not apply to individuals with disabilities, those who are pregnant, the primary caregiver for a child under six or a family member who has a disability, or an individual enrolled in secondary education.
 

How many hours of work would be required?

The minimum amount of work that could be required is 40 hours per week; however, a housing agency could choose less, or they could choose not to implement this rule at all.
 

Who would the time limit apply to?

All families in the mentioned federal housing programs could be subject to the time limit policy except families whose head of households are elderly (62 years or older) or have a disability.
 

How Would the Time Limit Impact NYCHA?

Figure 1

According to NYCHA's administrative records, the average Section 8 household relies on a voucher for nearly 12 years, while the average public housing household remains in their unit for over 27 years. Forcing families out after just 24 months would not encourage self-sufficiency; rather, it would intentionally manufacture mass displacement, destabilizing thousands of families and neighborhoods across the five boroughs.
 

Does adding a work requirement solve a real problem?

No. 4.6 million households receive federal housing assistance, and more than 60 percent are either over 61 years old or have a disability. In the rest of that “work-able” population, more than 80 percent are employed, and the rest are attending school, caregiving for a family member or are ill. There are times when employed individuals struggle with problems like inconsistent hours or layoffs driven by larger economic factors; punishing these families is only making the situation worse.
 

If everyone is working or in an excluded category, then won’t the work requirements have no impact?

No. Work requirements have been shown to add unnecessary costs to agencies like NYCHA and can cause eligible households to lose their assistance simply due to burdensome paperwork.
 

Are NYCHA Households Working?

Figure 2

The numbers do not justify strict work requirements. Across the roughly 143,000 Public Housing and Section 8 households in NYCHA, nearly 55,000 already contain at least one working adult. Once explicitly exempt populations—such as seniors, individuals with disabilities, caregivers for young children, and enrolled students—are factored in, the pool of non-working, non-exempt adults plummets.

Data from CSS’s 2024 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Stability further shows that over half of the remaining unemployed group is actively searching for a job, making them fully compliant with HUD's proposed rule.

Ultimately, HUD is threatening to upend the lives of 143,000 families and waste millions in taxpayer dollars just to target fewer than 10,000 households—a microscopic fraction of the tenant base, proving this sweeping mandate is a devastating solution in search of a problem.

Methodology for Figure 2:

The "Exempt" population includes Seniors, Caregivers of young children, Disabled individuals, and enrolled Students. Data was adjusted to prevent the double-counting of employed seniors. Estimates for Student enrollment (7.1%) and Active Job Seekers (51.3% of non-working tenants) were derived directly from the CSS ASHES 2024 NYS Survey. Importantly, this analysis is highly conservative: due to data limitations, we did not attempt to exclude pregnant women or caretakers of disabled adults—both of whom are explicitly exempt under HUD’s proposed rule. This means the true target population is likely even smaller than depicted.

Overview

Small buildings—structures with one to four housing units—are widely distributed across New York City and house a diverse range of residents. One-to-four-unit residential buildings account for over 37 percent of all housing in New York City.^[1] This housing stock is unique in that it is home to some of the wealthiest and some of the lowest-income New Yorkers: the owner of a single-family home and the tenant of an unauthorized basement apartment are both classified as residents of small buildings.

One-to-four-unit buildings are often owner-occupied,^[2] and, in general, homeowners have higher incomes than renters living in unregulated units such as basement apartments.^[3] At the same time, this housing type includes many low-income tenants living in informal or precarious conditions.

These differences shape how residents experience climate risks. Recent extreme weather events have highlighted the particular vulnerabilities of small buildings, as well as the types of mitigation strategies that may help reduce property damage and prevent negative health consequences.

Climate Risks

Flood Risk

Flooding is a growing threat across New York City, but it presents distinct risks in small buildings. Unlike large multifamily developments, small homes often include subgrade space used for housing, making residents of basement apartments particularly vulnerable to stormwater flooding, where the risks of injury or death are especially high.

New York City faces three types of flooding: tidal flooding, caused by high tides; storm surge flooding, which pushes seawater inland during major storms; and stormwater flooding, which occurs when heavy rainfall overwhelms drainage systems. Of these, stormwater flooding poses the most immediate and widespread risk to small buildings because it can occur far from the coastline and often impacts basement units.

Climate change is expected to bring more frequent and intense rainfall. Historically, the city has averaged 16.3 days per year with at least one inch of rainfall, but by the 2080s this could increase to 23.7 days. Annual precipitation is projected to rise by 10 percent by the 2030s and by up to 30 percent by the end of the century. New York City’s sewer system is designed to handle 1.5 to 1.75 inches of rain per hour, depending on the borough. However, storms producing 2.1 inches of rain per hour are expected to occur every five years. The Department of Environmental Protection has identified more than 100 areas that experience chronic stormwater flooding, though only a portion are designated as priority areas for infrastructure investment.

These trends are already producing deadly outcomes. During Hurricane Ida in 2021, 14 New Yorkers died, 11 of them drowning in basement apartments across seven homes—most in low-rise, one-to-four family buildings.^[4] Smaller residences were also disproportionately affected, accounting for 75 percent of damaged buildings despite representing 52 percent of the housing stock.

Coastal flooding presents an additional and growing threat. Sea levels are projected to rise significantly in the coming decades, increasing the frequency and severity of tidal flooding in neighborhoods such as Jamaica Bay, Old Howard Beach, and the Rockaways^[5]—areas where over three-quarters of buildings are small buildings. Despite this, real estate development continues in flood-prone areas: an estimated $3.6 billion worth of one- to three-family homes sold in 2023 are likely to flood before the end of their 30-year mortgage.^[6]

Heat Risk

As an urban metropolis, with extensive paving and limited green space, New York City is warmer than surrounding suburban or rural areas. Projections indicate that extreme heat events will become more frequent, more intense, and longer in duration. Extreme heat is already an increasingly serious and deadly threat in the city, with most heat-related deaths occurring in the home. These risks manifest in distinct ways in small buildings.

In basement and attic apartments—both common in this housing stock—temperature extremes can be difficult to regulate. Basement units may lack adequate ventilation, while attic units often experience excessive heat due to direct sun exposure and poor insulation.

Economic constraints further shape exposure. Low-income tenants in small buildings, particularly those in informal units, may be unable to afford the cost of purchasing or operating air conditioning. As a result, access to cooling does not always translate into use, increasing the risk of heat-related illness during prolonged heat events.

These risks are compounded by neighborhood-level inequities. Many areas with high concentrations of small buildings—such as Bensonhurst, Gravesend, Flatlands, and Canarsie in Brooklyn and Flushing, Jamaica, St. Albans, Cambria Heights, and Laurelton in Queens—also rank among the city’s most heat-vulnerable communities on the NYC Heat Vulnerability Index, reflecting longstanding patterns of disinvestment and limited access to green space.

Structural & Social Vulnerabilities

Small residential buildings frequently include subgrade or top-floor spaces used for housing, commonly known as basement and attic apartments. These units are especially vulnerable to both flooding and extreme heat, creating significant risks for residents.

Basement apartments are particularly susceptible to stormwater flooding, which can occur quickly and with little warning. Many such units lack adequate drainage, egress, or flood protection, increasing the risk of injury or death during extreme weather events. Of all the New York City single-story buildings that will likely be inundated by extreme rainfall flooding, nearly 93,528 (45 percent) have a subgrade space,^[7] some of which are likely unregulated basement apartments.

Attic apartments present a different but related set of risks. Because they often do not meet safety codes for occupancy, these units—and the people who live in them—are not always captured in the City’s official housing statistics. However, certain characteristics are common. These units often lack proper insulation and ventilation and are exposed to more direct sunlight, making them especially susceptible to extreme heat in the summer. As a result, residents may face heightened risk of heat-related illness or death during sustained heat waves.

Although precise numbers are difficult to determine,^[8] estimates suggest that 300,000 to 500,000 New Yorkers live in basement or attic apartments, with the highest concentrations in Eastern Brooklyn and Queens.^[9][10] These units are more likely to house recent immigrants, low-income households, and other socially vulnerable populations, further compounding climate risks in this housing stock.

Mitigation Opportunities

For Property Owners

Accessory Dwelling Units

As Mayor Adams’ City of Yes for Housing Opportunity plan is implemented, property owners will have expanded opportunities to create Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), including through the legalization of existing basement and attic apartments as well as the construction of new backyard units on residential lots.

For small buildings, this policy is particularly relevant to basement and attic units, which are already widely used for housing but often exist outside of code compliance. Bringing these units into compliance can improve safety by reducing flood risk, improving ventilation and insulation, and ensuring adequate egress. Simultaneously, the creation of new, code-compliant ADUs offers a pathway to expand the housing supply without introducing the same level of climate vulnerability associated with subgrade units.

Legalization and new construction together may also improve the City’s ability to identify and support households living in small buildings, particularly those currently residing in informal units.

Flood Alarms

Existing basement apartments that remain out of code compliance will continue to remain susceptible to flooding. Flood alarms—similar to smoke detectors—can provide early warning when water is detected, giving residents more time to evacuate. These relatively low-cost devices could help reduce injury and loss of life, particularly in basement units. A city-supported program could expand access to flood alarms as an interim safety measure for residents in vulnerable units, particularly where property owners can demonstrate progress toward bringing those units into compliance.

Ventilation and Air Conditioning

Access to air conditioning is critical to preventing heat-related illness and death, but cost remains a barrier for many households in small buildings, particularly for low-income tenants responsible for their own electricity.^[11] Residents in basement and attic units may face additional financial burdens because physical constraints—such as limited window access, poor insulation, and high heat exposure—can make cooling systems less effective and more expensive to operate. The state’s Heat and Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) Cooling Assistance Program helps offset the cost of purchasing and installing air conditioning units, with up to $1,000 per year for low-income households. However, funding is limited and distributed on a first-come, first-served basis; and the program does not provide ongoing financial assistance toward electricity costs.

At the city level, a new law will require property owners to provide air conditioning units for tenants who request them. However, tenants will remain responsible for electricity costs; and some tenants may see their rent increase slightly to cover the cost. Full implementation will not occur until 2030, leaving several summers before tenants can reap the cooling benefits of the law.

For Government

Infrastructure Investment

New York City’s sewer system does not have the capacity to handle projected increases in stormwater. As a result, flooding is expected to become more frequent in neighborhoods across the city, including areas with high concentrations of small buildings. Upgrading this infrastructure is essential but costly and time intensive.

Complementary investments in green infrastructure—such as rain gardens, permeable pavement, and expanded tree cover—can help absorb stormwater before it enters the sewer system while also reducing neighborhood temperatures. These strategies are particularly important in areas with many small buildings, where residents rely on surrounding infrastructure to mitigate both flooding and heat.

Funding for Resilient Acquisitions/Buyouts

Buyout programs can provide a pathway for homeowners in the most flood-prone areas to relocate and reduce long-term exposure to risk. Following Superstorm Sandy in 2012, New York State implemented voluntary buyouts in heavily impacted neighborhoods. In Oakwood, Staten Island, where most of the properties were small buildings, 99 percent of the residents opted to participate in the buyout program.^[12] The cleared areas where their homes once stood would create a buffer zone that might make the rest of Staten Island safer.

Some local efforts to revive acquisition programs are underway, but they remain in early stages and lack dedicated funding. Expanding and reinstating buyout programs would provide an important option for homeowners in the most vulnerable areas (e.g., South Ozone Park in Queens, East New York in Brooklyn), particularly where repeated flooding makes long-term habitation unsafe.

Financing and Capital Support for Homeowners

Small buildings are often owner-occupied or operated by small landlords with limited access to capital for flood mitigation or post-flood repairs. Existing city and state programs provide grants and low-interest loans to support improvements such as floodproofing, insulation, and energy-efficient systems.

At the state level, the Resilient Retrofits program provides grants and low-interest loans to low- and moderate-income homeowners living in flood prone areas for projects such as sealing below-grade space, improving insulation, and upgrading heating and cooling systems with heat pumps. At the city level, programs such as HomeFix provide financing to homeowners of one-to-four-family homes for repairs and upgrades, such as for energy efficiency. The forgivable loans can be used to improve conditions in the home that can affect the health and safety of the people that live there.

Expanding access to these programs—and ensuring small building owners are aware of them—will be critical to reducing climate risk in this housing stock, which requires policies and investments that reflect the realities of building form, informality, and limited resources.
 

Explore climate risks by housing type

This post is part of our 2026 Earth Week series Climate Change and New York City's Housing Stock. View other posts in this series on rent-stabilized housing, subsidized housing, and public housing.

Notes

1. In NYC, there 3.7 million housing units, of which 1.4 million are in one-to-four-unit buildings. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. “Selected Housing Characteristics.” American Community Survey, ACS 1-Year Estimates Data Profiles, Table DP04.

2. 2023 NYC Housing Vacancy Survey: Selected Initial Findings, page 7.

3. “Our Fast Analysis of the 2021 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey.” October 2023. Community Service Society of New York.

4. Yuan, Ariel et al. “Immediate Injury Deaths Related to the Remnants From Hurricane Ida in New York City, September 1-2, 2021.” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 18 (2024): e55.

5. Orton, Philip et al. “New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) 2019 Report Chapter 4: Coastal Flooding.” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1439 (2019): 95-114.

6. “Selling Flood Risk: NYC.” May 2024. Rebuild by Design.

7. Rosenzweig, Bernice et al. New York City Panel on Climate Change 4 (NPCC4): Climate Change and New York City's Flood Risk. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1539 (2024): 127–184.

8. Lander, Brad. “Bringing Basement Apartments into the Light: Establishing a NYC Basement Board to Provide Basic Rights, Responsibilities, and Protections for Basement Apartment Residents and Owners.” August 2022. 

9. “New York’s Housing Underground: A Refuge and Resource.” March 2008. Pratt Center for Community Development and Chhaya Community Development Corporation.

10. Basements Data Dashboard by Pratt Center for Community Development. March 2022.

11. “Protecting New Yorkers from Extreme Heat.” September 2020. NYC Environment & Health Data Portal by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

12. Salles, Joaquim. “Left Behind: What life is like for the last residents of Staten Island’s Oakwood Beach.” September 21, 2022.

Overview

New York City has the nation’s largest public housing stock, with over 177,569 units managed by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) across the five boroughs. Like much of public housing in the United States, many NYCHA developments were built near polluted sites,^[1] exposing residents to long-standing environmental health risks. NYCHA housing serves predominantly low-income New Yorkers, including large numbers of seniors, people with disabilities, and people of color—many of whom already face significant health and economic vulnerabilities.

Climate change is expected to exacerbate these conditions. Post-Superstorm Sandy analyses suggest that low-income residents will bear a disproportionate share of climate-related impacts.^[2] More extreme weather, rising temperatures, and sea level rise may increase physical injury and mental distress; worsen air pollution, allergens, pests, and ground-level ozone; and lead to more heat-related illness and death. While the precise impacts will continue to evolve, already health-burdened, low-income communities are likely to face increasingly severe consequences as climate change intensifies.

Climate Risks

Flood Risk

Many of New York’s public housing units were constructed near the then-industrial waterfront on cheap land, often to house New Yorkers displaced by “urban renewal” projects. Because of this legacy, many NYCHA developments are currently located in low-lying coastal areas and face significant flood risk. There are 921 NYCHA buildings in the 100-year flood zone, representing approximately 38 percent of all NYCHA buildings. An additional 897 NYCHA buildings are at risk of being inundated by extreme rainfall over the coming decades.

Geographically, 36 percent of NYCHA developments sit within a quarter mile of the shoreline, with major concentrations in the Rockaways, near the Brooklyn Navy Yard, in Brooklyn neighborhoods of Gowanus and Red Hook, and in Lower Manhattan.

Because NYCHA buildings are overrepresented along the waterfront, they are at high risk for both coastal flooding—including storm surge—and inland stormwater flooding caused by heavy rainfall overwhelming draining systems. Rainfall patterns are becoming more uneven and intense, and impacts vary based on drainage capacity, groundwater conditions, and local topography. These risks are compounded by the aging infrastructure of NYCHA buildings, given the lack of attention and federal funding for maintenance.

Climate change is expected to bring more frequent and intense rainfall events. Historically, New York City has averaged 16.3 days per year with at least one inch of rainfall; by the 2080s, this could reach up to 23.7 days. Annual precipitation is projected to rise by 10 percent by the 2030s and by up to 30 percent by the 2100s. Under current extreme rainfall scenarios, over 200,000 buildings citywide could be inundated by flooding, including 30 percent of all NYCHA buildings.

These risks are already evident in specific communities. The Rockaway Peninsula in Queens, for example, is geographically isolated and highly exposed, surrounded by water on both sides and facing ongoing threats from coastal storms and sea level rise. Jamaica Bay, to the north, was once a dumping ground for raw sewage, while the ocean shoreline to the south remains under constant threat from hurricanes and other major storms. Public housing developments in this area were already in poor condition prior to Superstorm Sandy and experienced severe damage during the storm. Recovery has been uneven, with more gentrified areas receiving substantial reinvestment while others—particularly those home to predominantly Black and Latino public housing residents—have taken far longer to recover.

As measured by census tract data, the Rockaway Peninsula is near the 100th percentile nationally for extreme flood risk due to projected sea level rise by 2050. Public housing communities in this area are especially vulnerable to climate impacts. NYCHA’s Beach Channel Drive, for example is located in a census tract within the 90th percentile of the U.S. Climate Vulnerability Index. This ranking reflects multiple compounding factors, including flood exposure; high rates of self-reported poor physical and mental health; elevated levels of toxic air pollution, black carbon, and emissions from nearby industrial facilities; and, lower life expectancy. These conditions are also present in neighboring developments such as Hammels and Carleton Manor.

Similarly, public housing developments along the East River in Lower Manhattan house tens of thousands of residents in areas that remain at high risk of storm surge and flooding. From Jacob Riis Houses in Alphabet City to Smith Houses in the Two Bridges neighborhood, at least 22,500 Lower East Side residents are at exceedingly high risk of flood exposure. While much of Lower Manhattan hovers around the 20th percentile of the U.S. Climate Vulnerability Index, census tracts with high concentrations of public housing along the East River average closer to the 80th percentile.

Although flooding is a concern across southern Manhattan, public housing developments are especially vulnerable due to disparities in infrastructure investment and available services. This pattern extends to NYCHA developments across the city. Click here to view an overlay of NYCHA developments and floodplains.

Heat Risk

Extreme heat is an increasingly serious and deadly threat in New York City, with most heat-related deaths occurring in the home. NYCHA residents—who are more likely to be low-income, older, or living with disabilities—face heightened exposure to heat-related illness and death.

Access to air conditioning varies across the city, and neighborhoods with the highest rates of homes lacking functioning air conditioning often include large public housing populations. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) tracks self-reported rates of function air conditioning across the city. In several community districts in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens with significant public housing populations—including areas such as Morrisania, Brownsville, and the Rockaways—significant shares of households lack adequate cooling, placing thousands of NYCHA residents at risk during extreme heat events.

At the same time, the physical design of public housing creates both challenges and advantages. Many NYCHA developments follow a “tower-in-the-park” model, with substantial open space and tree canopy. These features can help mitigate the urban heat island effect, and in some cases, NYCHA campuses are measurably cooler than surrounding neighborhoods. Satellite-based temperature data suggests that some developments experience lower surface temperatures than nearby built-up areas.^[3]

However, these relative differences do not eliminate danger. Absolute temperatures during heat waves remain dangerously high, and outdoor cooling effects do not translate into safe indoor conditions. Access to reliable cooling—particularly air conditioning—remains critical.

Widespread air conditioning use during extreme heat can also strain the electrical grid, increasing the likelihood of outages. When outages occur, the consequences can be severe. Many NYCHA residents rely on elevators to access their homes, and outages can leave residents—particularly older adults and people with disabilities—unable to leave their apartments or reach cooling centers. In these conditions, heat exposure can quickly become life-threatening.

Structural & Social Vulnerabilities

NYCHA houses a disproportionately large share of residents with characteristics that increase exposure to climate-related harm. Approximately 110,000 residents are children, and 77,000 are seniors. Thirteen percent of residents are people under 65 living with disabilities—nearly double the citywide average of 7.3 percent.

The population characteristics intersect with existing building conditions to heighten risk. Many developments have long-standing issues such as high concentrations of lead, mold, and other harmful pollutants in public housing, as detailed in the July 2024 Community Service Society report, The Other Housing Crisis,^[4]contributing to elevated rates of asthma and other chronic health conditions. As a result, residents are more likely to have underlying health needs that can be worsened by extreme heat, flooding, and prolonged utility outages.

Mobility constraints further shape how residents experience climate events. More than 31,000 NYCHA residents have mobility impairments^[5] and more than 75,500 are seniors,^[6] and many rely on elevators to access their homes. Power outages—particularly during extreme heat—can therefore have cascading effects, leaving residents unable to leave their apartments, reach cooling centers, or access medical care. Lacking capital, NYCHA has continued to repair and maintain mechanical systems that reflect the technologies available at the time of their original construction.

Building systems also contribute to exposure. Most NYCHA apartments (92 percent) are heated by a natural gas and/or oil-fueled steam system, an early 20th century technology that is both less efficient and much more difficult to control than modern systems. These systems are inefficient, difficult to regulate, and often result in both overheating in winter and inadequate temperature control overall. Many buildings also suffer from poor insulation and thermal bridging, making it difficult to maintain safe indoor temperatures and increasing energy use.

Research shows that power outages in public housing are both frequent and prolonged.^[7] During extremely hot weather, when demand on the electrical grid is highest, NYCHA developments saw on average more than 12 hours of elevator outages, particularly in senior housing. In these conditions, residents may become effectively trapped in their high-rise apartments, increasingly the likelihood of heat-related illness or death.

Mitigation Opportunities

Preparing public housing for the impacts of climate change presents both significant challenges and unique opportunities. Program rules governing Section 9 and Section 8 ensure that residents are protected from the displacement that can accompany the gentrifying effects of green upgrades,^[8] but this, combined with chronic underfunding, has limited the resources available for large-scale climate interventions. At the same time, NYCHA’s size and centralized ownership structure create opportunities that are not available in other housing types.

NYCHA has made measurable progress in advancing its Sustainability Agenda through electrification pilots, heat pumps, solar power expansion, weatherization, and roof replacements, contributing to a 17 percent reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions, as well as improved building performance and stronger defenses against water intrusion. However, many current preservation efforts, particularly through the PACT program, do not consistently deliver the deep energy retrofits needed to meaningfully reduce emissions and improve long-term resilience.

Addressing procurement and delivery constraints

Existing state and federal procurement rules put limitations on whom housing authorities can contract with for construction work and on how they determine which contractors to select. The state specifically has a rule requiring the splitting of design and construction work into separate contracts, which makes the process slow, costly, and inefficient. Reforms such as the Public Housing Procurement Reform Act (A.3965/S.6672) would authorize a Progressive Design-Build authority, allowing agencies to integrate planning, design, and construction into a single process. This reform could help reduce costs and accelerate urgently needed retrofits.

Tackling financing constraints and misalignment

NYCHA’s ability to mitigate climate risk is shaped not only by its own planning, but by how it fits within broader city and state financing systems. New York City’s climate budgeting framework^[9] creates a pathway to prioritize investments based on emissions reduction, and public housing—given its age and inefficiency—offers some of the highest potential returns. However, NYCHA is not yet fully integrated into this framework and risks being left out of capital prioritization decisions.

This misalignment extends to existing decarbonization funding streams. Under Local Law 97, the Affordable Housing Reinvestment Fund allows private building owners to comply with emissions limits by purchasing carbon offsets that fund retrofits in affordable housing. However, the program is constrained by a cap that limits offsets to 10 percent of a building’s emissions. This restricts the overall pool of funding and makes it difficult to finance the large, upfront, campus-wide upgrades required in public housing. As a result, funding tends to flow toward smaller, lower-cost projects in privately owned buildings rather than the more complex and capital-intensive work required in NYCHA developments.

Taking Advantage of NYCHA’s Scale

Legislative proposals such as the Green New Deal for Public Housing (S.6674), which would require deep energy retrofits to International Passive House standards that can save more than 70 percent in heating and cooling costs, point to a pathway for aligning climate and housing policy at scale.

Addressing the magnitude of need in public housing will require sustained capital investment. However, existing state programs are often not structured to meet these needs. For example, the Clean Energy Initiative (CEI), which funds building electrification and efficiency upgrades, relies on per-unit funding caps that do not reflect the true cost of retrofitting large, aging public housing developments. As a result, these programs are often difficult for NYCHA to access or insufficient to support comprehensive upgrades. To effectively address climate risks—including flooding, extreme heat, and ongoing building deterioration—public housing must be fully integrated into these existing funding and policy frameworks, rather than treated as a separate or secondary priority.

While New York City has committed significant resources to public housing, current capital strategies ignore avenues for further advancement. As utilized in the state legislature’s Green New Deal for Public Housing, NYCHA has a great advantage in its massive scale. One of the biggest problems in terms of financing green preservation is the math rarely adds up when it comes to the costs of capital, materials, and work when doing each project one-by-one. (This is why most green retrofits involve one-off projects for wealthy clients.) NYCHA’s scale, consistent typology, and repair needs provide the perfect opportunity to not only combine contracts but to create markets, driving innovation in the sector. The Climate and Community Institute and New York Policy Forum’s February 2026 policy report, “The Case for City-led Housing Retrofits in New York City”^[10] laid out how New York City could pool retrofit projects for more efficient procurement of green retrofits. NYCHA could be the base of such a plan, lowering per-unit costs and driving innovation that will help future-proof homes across the city.

Investing in open space

Targeted investments in public housing open space could also play a role in climate mitigation. NYCHA’s extensive open space presents an opportunity to expand green infrastructure—such as rain gardens and permeable surfaces—to manage stormwater and reduce neighborhood heat.
 

Explore climate risks by housing type

This post is part of our 2026 Earth Week series Climate Change and New York City's Housing Stock. View other posts in this series on rent-stabilized housing, subsidized housing, and small buildings.

Notes

1. Angela Caputo and Sharon Lerner, “House poor, pollution rich.” AMPreports, January, 2021.

2. Tracey Ross, “A Disaster in the Making: Addressing the Vulnerability of Low-Income Communities to Extreme Weather.” Center for American Progress, August, 2023.

3. New York City Council Data Team, NYC Heat Map (Surface Temperature).

4. Oksana Mironova, Lonnie Portis, Samuel Stein, and Iziah Thompson. "The Other Housing Crisis: Poor Housing Conditions Are Not Only a NYCHA Problem—They’re a Low-Income Housing Problem,” Community Service Society of New York, July 2024.

5. NYCHA, “PRESS RELEASE: MAYOR ADAMS, GOVERNOR HOCHUL, NYCHA UNDERTAKE EFFORT TO REPLACE ELEVATORS IN DEVELOPMENTS SERVING NEARLY 34,000 RESIDENTS,” January, 2023.

6. NYCHA Resident Data Book, January, 2025.

7. Nina M. Flores, Diana Hernández, Carolyn A. Fahey, Lonnie J. Portis, and Joan A. Casey. “Assessing the Burden of Electrical, Elevator, Heat, Hot Water, and Water Service Interruptions in New York City Public Housing,” September 2024, Journal of Urban Health, 101: 990-999.

8. Jesse M Keenan, Thomas Hill, and Anurag Gumber, “Climate gentrification: from theory to empiricism in Miami-Dade County, Florida,” Environmental Research Letters. 13 (2018): 054001.

9. New York City Climate Budgeting, 2026.

10. Julie Wagner, “The Case for City-led Housing Retrofits in New York City,” The Climate and Community Institute and New York Policy Forum, February 2026.

Overview

Nearly 127,700 New Yorkers earning under 50 percent of Area Median Income live in apartments that receive federal, state, or local subsidies.^[1] This category encompasses a wide range of building types and development histories.

Mid-20th century developments, such as Mitchell-Lama rentals and project-based Section 8 buildings, were constructed as large campus-style affordable housing complexes. Later, in the mid-1980s and 1990s, community development corporations and emerging for-profit affordable housing developers converted tenements and older mid-rise apartment buildings into affordable housing using the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. Since then, continued public investment has supported both new construction and preservation efforts across the city.

Climate Risks

Flood Risk

Subsidized housing is exposed to multiple forms of flooding, each of which is intensifying with climate change.

Tidal flooding already affects low-lying neighborhoods with large concentrations of subsidized housing, including the Rockaways and Coney Island.^[2] In a recent five-year risk assessment, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene identified tidal flooding as a top public health threat that is being exacerbated by sea level rise.^[3]

Coastal storm surges from extreme weather events are less frequent but more destructive, and subsidized housing has borne heavy impacts. For example, Superstorm Sandy in 2012 severely damaged Ocean Towers, a Mitchell-Lama rental in Coney Island, requiring a $50 million rehabilitation in the aftermath of the storm.^[4]

Stormwater flooding—caused when the heavy rains overwhelm the city’s aging water drainage systems—is increasing in frequency and severity. Unlike tidal floods and coastal storm surges, stormwater flooding can occur in neighborhoods that are far from the coast, affecting New Yorkers across a much wider swath of the city.^[5]

Despite these growing risks, new construction in flood-prone areas has continued at a rapid pace. A 2022 NYC Comptroller report found that market-rate real estate values in the 100-year floodplain have risen to over $176 billion, a 44 percent increase since Superstorm Sandy.^[6] Coney Island alone has added nearly 2,000 new apartments since the storm, all within the city’s floodplain.^[7] Much of new development in the neighborhood is driven by a 2009, Bloomberg-era, rezoning, which created the capacity for 4,500 new apartments, including around 1,000 city-subsidized units.^[8]

While some new coastal developments include climate-mitigating features—such as the geothermal heating and cooling system in a new luxury rental on Surf Avenue—all the new rentals are likely to be impacted by persistent flooding during high tides in the next 60 years.^[9] Affordable housing construction, which is highly dependent on private market development, follows the same pattern: the city and state funnel public dollars to private developers, who then build below-market units. New subsidized rentals, like the 446-unit Coney Island Phase I and 183-unit Rockaway Village Apartments, continue to be sited in flood-prone neighborhoods.^[10]

Heat Risk

Heat has proven to be far deadlier to New Yorkers year to year than flooding. On average, 350 people die each year as a result of heat waves, with most deaths occurring at home. Older adults are most vulnerable to heat-related illnesses, but racial inequities also shape outcomes: Black New Yorkers are twice as likely to die from heat-related illnesses as white New Yorkers and are more than twice as likely to live in subsidized housing.^[11]

The City’s Heat Vulnerability Index, which accounts for factors such as daytime surface temperatures and access to air conditioning, illustrates the racialized and class-based inequities in climate change impacts on the city’s neighborhoods.^[12] Neighborhoods with higher shares of Black, Latino, and low-income residents—including East Harlem and the South Bronx—have higher heat vulnerability ratings.^[13] These same neighborhoods were the sites of major urban renewal projects and affordable housing conversions throughout the 20th century and contain sizable shares of subsidized housing.

With longer, more sustained heat waves each summer, access to cooling is increasingly as important as access to heating. Subsidized housing tenants report somewhat better air conditioning access than those in the private rental market.^[14] And policy changes, including new requirements for landlords to provide air conditioning in certain housing types, may improve access to cooling.^[15] Yet in buildings where tenants pay for their own electricity, cost remains a barrier: according to the 2023 NYC Housing Vacancy Survey, one out of five subsidized tenants did not use their air conditioning because of cost, compared to one out of three rent-stabilized tenants.

Structural & Social Vulnerabilities

A building’s age, maintenance history, and location all impact its vulnerability to climate change. Mid-20th century “slum clearance” and urban renewal policies—shaped by racist real estate and banking practices—brought Mitchell-Lama, and later, project-based Section 8 rental developments, to coastal neighborhoods that have become increasingly exposed to flooding because of climate change.^[16] Today, over-reliance on market-driven development continues to push affordable housing into areas with climate risks.

Many subsidized developments include older buildings with limited floodproofing, making them especially vulnerable to building systems breakdowns, utility outages, and mold following extreme weather events.

Many older subsidized buildings are master-metered, meaning the cost of electricity is included in the general operating costs of the building. However, federal austerity measures are threatening the operating budgets of Department of Housing and Urban Development-subsidized developments and programs that provide low-income households with support for heating and cooling.^[17]

Mitigation Opportunities

With sufficient political will, housing subsidies present a powerful lever for advancing environmental sustainability goals.

Campus-scale opportunities

The campus-style typology of some subsidized developments creates opportunities to implement large-scale mitigation strategies that benefit entire neighborhoods. Interventions such as tree planting and pit widening, porous pavement installation, bioswales, rain gardens, and sunken pavement can reduce flood risk for subsidized buildings while also lowering surrounding temperatures.

Large buildings and emissions policy

Because larger multifamily buildings contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, New York has targeted them in climate policy. Local Law 97 (2019) set emissions caps on buildings over 25,000 square feet—a threshold that includes most of the city’s larger subsidized developments. While the law’s compliance period began in 2024, most subsidized buildings are not required to meet the caps until 2035.^[18]

Financing tools and constraints

To offset the costliness of capital projects—such as building electrification or heat pump installation—that will make Local Law 97 compliance possible, there are several city and state tax incentives, as well as loan and grant programs, designed to reduce carbon emissions. For example, an updated J-51R program, currently under consideration by the state’s legislature, would provide a substantial tax break for landlords who make building-wide improvements, while the NYC Accelerator offers long-term, fixed-rate financing for energy efficiency projects and renewable energy installation. In subsidized developments with tight operating budgets and minimal reserves, these upgrades are often bundled together with more basic types of repairs, like façade work or plumbing upgrades.

State-level policy opportunities

More broadly, housing subsidies themselves provide the public with leverage to mandate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed Social Housing Development Authority (SHDA),^[19] for instance, would create a new, statewide public authority with power to both finance social housing conversions and build new, permanently affordable rentals and cooperatives to high levels of environmental sustainability.

The lack of political will remains the primary obstacle to protecting existing subsidized tenants from the harmful impacts of climate change and to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in new affordable housing.
 

Explore climate risks by housing type

This post is part of our 2026 Earth Week series Climate Change and New York City's Housing Stock. View other posts in this series on rent-stabilized housing, public housing, and small buildings.

Notes

1. “Rent Regulation Keeps New York, New York.” Community Service Society of New York, April, 2025.

2. Hernandez, Natalie. “Coney Island residents brace for coastal flooding.” News 12, October 12, 2025.

3. “Jurisdictional Risk Assessment 2024.” New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, June 2025.

4. “Ocean Towers.” New York Housing Conference.

5. NYC Department of Environmental Protection. “2024 Stormwater Analysis.”

6. Lander, Brad. “Ten Years After Sandy Barriers to Resilience.” October 13, 2022.

7. Maldonado, Samantha and Pierre-Louis, Kendra. “Hurricane Sandy Devastated Coney Island 10 Years Ago. So Why Has NYC Added Almost 2,000 Homes to the Area Since?” The City. October 27, 2022.

8. “Coney Island Comprehensive Rezoning Plan.” NYC Economic Development Corporation. January 20, 2009.

9. “NYC Flood Hazard Mapper.” NYC Department of City Planning.

10. “2926 West 19th Street.” L+M Development Partners.

11. “The Urban Heat Island Effect in NYC.” NYC Environmental & Health Data Portal. According to the 2023 NYC Housing Vacancy Survey, white tenants make up 15 percent of subsidized housing residents, while Black tenants account for 37 percent.

12. “Interactive Heat Vulnerability Index.” NYC Environmental & Health Data Portal.

13. Ibid.

14. CSS analysis of the 2023 HVS. 94 percent of subsidized renters reported having an AC or central air, compared to 88% of regulated and market tenants.

15. Venugopal, Arun. “Air conditioning in every NYC apartment? A new law aims to make that happen.” Gothamist. January 23, 2026.

16. “Rising Tides, Rising Costs: Flood Insurance and New York City’s Affordability Crisis.” Center for New York City Neighborhoods. September 2014.

17. Coburn, Jesse. “Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan.” Pro Publica. September 29, 2025.

18. “Local Law 97 Timeline.” Urban Green Council.

19.  “2025-2026 NYS Legislative Session: Senate Bill S5674.” New York State Senate.

Overview

More low-income households call rent-stabilized apartments home than any other type of housing. Although it is not means-tested or directly subsidized, this housing stock serves 37 percent (434,300 households) of New Yorkers earning less than 50 percent of the Area Median Income. More Black and Latino New Yorkers live in rent-stabilized apartments than any other form of housing.^[1]

While rent stabilization applies to a range of building types, the vast majority of units are located in buildings with more than five apartments built before 1974. These buildings typically lack central air conditioning, and many are located in flood-prone areas, leaving residents exposed to both extreme heat and storm-related hazards.

Climate Risks

Flood Risk

Rent-stabilized apartments are distributed across all five boroughs, with particularly high concentrations in upper Manhattan, the south Bronx, and Central Brooklyn. While they are not as clustered along the waterfront as public housing, some of the neighborhoods with the highest numbers of rent-stabilized apartments–including Washington Heights/Inwood (45,000 units), Highbridge/Concourse (45,000 units), Williamsburg/Greenpoint (27,000 units), and Astoria (31,000 units)—border coastal or flood-prone areas.^[2]

Flood risk is increasing across the city, driven not only by rising sea levels but also by more intense storms and overwhelmed sewer infrastructure, making non-coastal areas subject to periodic flooding. During Superstorm Sandy in 2012, over 40,000 rent-stabilized units across 839 buildings were located within the storm surge zone.^[3] More recently, Hurricane Ida in 2022 demonstrated that flood risk extends far beyond mapped floodplains: fewer than 7 percent of damaged buildings were located within the 100-year floodplain.^[4]

Heavy rainfall is now a major driver of flooding in neighborhoods with significant rent-stabilized housing. Sewer networks in The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens are designed to handle roughly up to 1.5 inches of rain per hour; Manhattan and Staten Island’s can take in 1.75 inches per hour. The city’s Department of Environmental Protection, however, expects heavier storms in the coming years, with a 20 percent chance each year of storms that rain 2.1 inches of water per hour on our streets and into our over-capacity sewers, producing more floods.^[5]

Heat Risk

Extreme heat is an even more immediate and deadly threat. Each year, more New Yorkers die from heat than from flooding and cold weather combined, with most deaths occurring in the home.^[6]

While all neighborhoods experience heat waves, the urban heat island effect—in which certain city blocks face elevated temperatures due to a lack of trees, shading, and unpaved surfaces—concentrates the danger. According to the City of New York’s Heat Vulnerability Index, which scores neighborhoods on a scale of one to five (with five being the greatest vulnerability), several of the neighborhoods with the highest numbers and concentrations of rent-stabilized apartments–including Inwood, Mount Hope, Hunts Point, Flatbush, Harlem and East Harlem—also rank among the city’s most heat vulnerable areas.^[7]

Structural & Social Vulnerabilities

Rent-stabilized housing combines physical vulnerabilities with economic constraints that shape residents’ ability to respond to climate risks.

While rent-stabilized landlords are required to provide tenants with heat, until 2026, no such requirement related to cooling. Given that most rent-stabilized units are in older buildings without centralized air conditioning, many tenants have purchased their own window units. A new law passed in late 2025 mandates landlords to provide at least one air conditioning unit per apartment beginning in 2030. While the cost of purchase and installation can technically be passed along to rent-stabilized tenants through an Individual Apartment Improvements rent increase, this increase is likely minimal—a few dollars per month—and perhaps not worth the landlords’ trouble to get the increase approved by the state housing agency.

A greater problem, however, might be energy prices for low-income households. According to the 2023 Housing and Vacancy Survey, 34 percent of rent-stabilized households and 36 percent of rent-controlled households (an older and smaller subset of New York’s rent-regulated housing stock) did not use air conditioning because of cost—by far the largest percentage of any housing type in the city. Because most rent-regulated tenants pay for their own electricity, and because so many rent-regulated tenants  are struggling to make ends meet, rising utility rates—such as Con Edison’s recent nine percent electricity rate increase—may further discourage usage.^[8] As more rent-stabilized tenants avoid using their air conditioners because of cost, they may be more likely to suffer the dangerous consequences of extreme heat.

Mitigation Opportunities

Fragmented ownership and scale

The fragmented and predominantly private ownership structure of rent-stabilized housing presents challenges for building-level climate interventions. Nearly 15,000 real estate companies collectively control nearly one million units across more than 40,000 buildings.^[9] Unless they are paired with another subsidy stream or tax break (like J-51), these units are not subsidized, and they are largely owned by for-profit entities.^[10] Given the dispersed and profit-motivated ownership structure, neighborhood-level strategies may be necessary to protect all residents.

Neighborhood-level interventions

Some of these strategies could include tree planting, expanded tree pits, porous pavement installation, bioswales, rain gardens, and sunken pavement, all of which reduce flood risk while also lowering temperatures through increased shade and stormwater absorption. These types of interventions can provide broad protections across entire neighborhoods, regardless of building ownership.

Building-level programs and financing

At the building level, a range of existing city and state programs can finance sustainability investments and upgrades, which are required by the City’s Local Law 97—a landmark law that mandates that large buildings reduce carbon consumption and greenhouse emissions. Available financing and compliance tools to help rent-stabilized landlords upgrade buildings and apartments without imposing rent increases include:

• The expanded J-51 R program, currently under consideration by the state legislature, which offers a substantial tax break for landlords to make building-wide improvements, including those that qualify for Local Law 97 compliance;
• Landlord Ambassadors, which offers up to $50,000 in low-interest loans for emergency repairs and technical assistance, is not accepting new applications at the time of this publication, but will be available in the coming months;
• The Participation Loan Program, which offers 30-year subsidized loans for building-wide rehabilitation;
• The Multifamily Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program, which provides up to $35,000 per unit for upgrading building systems and improving building envelopes;
• The Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program, which offers incentives for installing improved equipment and technology;
• The NYC Accelerator Property Assessed Clean Energy program, which offers long-term fixed-rate financing with no money down for energy efficiency projects and renewable energy installation; and
• The Multifamily Buildings Low-Carbon Pathways Program, which includes incentives for heating, water, and energy upgrades.

Used in combination, these tax incentives and loan programs provide meaningful opportunities to upgrade building systems, improving energy efficiency, and reducing emissions.

Rent stabilization as climate policy

While these public programs and building-level interventions are all essential, rent stabilization itself plays a critical role in climate resilience. Research shows that strong community networks help improve disaster preparedness and response. For example, a study of Hurricane Sandy disaster recovery in New York City shows that while the Lower East Side and the Rockaways were both hit hard by the storm, the deep and long-standing legacy of community organizing on the Lower East Side created the conditions for a better and more equitable recovery.^[11] Rent stabilization goes a long way toward encouraging tenant and community organizing, enabling tenants not only to afford to stay in their homes and communities for the long term, but also to join with their neighbors in collective action without fear of landlord retribution and targeted displacement.^[12]

Rent regulation also protects from displacement linked to necessary climate upgrades. By limiting rent increases, it helps ensure that low-income tenants do not have to solely bear the costs of these upgrades via pass-through charges and steep rent hikes. This enables them to remain in their homes and benefit from improvements, rather than being displaced by them. As the Climate and Community Institute and the Sierra Club have found, “Rent regulations can ensure that the cost of repairs and retrofits are not passed onto tenants. They also ensure that in the wake of disasters, landlords cannot raise rents egregiously, enabling tenants to stay housed. Lastly, rent regulations ensure that neighborhood greening efforts happening adjacent to homes (like parks improvements and expansions of the sidewalk tree canopy) do not exacerbate a cycle of displacement.”^[13]

While rent-stabilized buildings and their neighborhoods require sustained public investment to meet the challenges of climate change, rent stabilization itself remains a central component of any strategy for achieving climate resilience and housing stability.
 

Explore climate risks by housing type

This post is part of our 2026 Earth Week series Climate Change and New York City's Housing Stock. View other posts in this series on subsidized housing, public housing, and small buildings.

Notes

1. “Rent Regulation Keeps New York, New York.” Community Service Society of New York, April, 2025.

2. 2023 HVS data. Note that neighborhoods listed are part of larger Community Districts/ Public Use Microdata Area designations and may include other neighborhoods.

3. NYU Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy and NYU Moelis Institute for Affordable Housing Policy. Sandy’s Effects on Housing in New York City. March, 2013.

4. NYC Community Development Block Grand Disaster Recovery website

5. NYC Department of Environmental Protection. “2024 Stormwater Analysis.”

6. New York City, web “The Urban Heat Island Effect in NYC” published August 20, 2021.

7. NYC Environment & Health Data Portal. “Interactive Heat Vulnerability Index.”

8. Maldonado, Samantha. “Con Ed Wants to Raise Your Bill – Again.” The City, February 11, 2025.

9. Data provided by JustFix based on their “Who Owns What” tool.

10. Non-profit subsidized housing is usually also rent-stabilized. Read about climate change and subsidized housing here.

11. Graham, Leigh, Wim Debucquoy, and Isabelle Anguelovski. "The influence of urban development dynamics on community resilience practice in New York City after Superstorm Sandy: Experiences from the Lower East Side and the Rockaways." Global Environmental Change 40 (2016): 112-124.

12. Prior CSS research has shown that rent-stabilized tenants are more likely to put down roots in their communities compared to market rate tenants. Mironova, Oksana and Samuel Stein. “Stabilizing Renters by Stabilizing Rents” Community Service Society of New York, November 2025.

13. Climate and Community Institute and the Sierra Club. ”Tenant Protections for Climate Justice." October, 2024. For a concrete example of this principle, see the LA Tenant Union’s mobilization to fight rent gauging after the January, 2025 wildfires.